-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2009 Mrs. Martha D' Souza, major of age, Indian national, resident of House no. 638, Oddi, Goa Velha, Goa. …... Applicant V e r s u s 1. Mr. Edwin M. Colaco, major of age, Indian National resident of A 301, Ground Floor, Karma Residential Enclave, Vaddem, Vasco da Gama, Goa. 2. The State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor, His Court, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. .….. Respondents CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 241 OF 2009 Mr. Theodiso D' Souza, major of age, Indian national, resident of House no. 638, Oddi, Goa Velha, Goa. …... Applicant V e r s u s 1. Mr. Edwin M. Colaco, major of age, Indian National resident of A 301, Ground Floor, Karma Residential Enclave, Vaddem, Vasco da Gama, Goa. 2. The State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor, His Court, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. .….. Respondents Mr. M. D' Souza, Advocate, holding for Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent no.2. -2- CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 26 th February, 2010. P.C. The above Criminal Misc. Applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the Applicants above named against their conviction by the Courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The learned Advocate, Shri Ryan Menezes, who has filed the Applications, sought discharge, after giving notice to the Applicants, which notice was received by the Applicants and accordingly he has been discharged from the aforesaid two Applications by Order dated 27.01.2010. By the said Order, the above Applications were adjourned to 10.02.2010, of which date, the learned Advocate Mr. Menezes was asked to give notice to the Applicants abovenamed. On 10.02.2010, Shri Menezes informed the Court that he has given notice but by ordinary post. The learned Advocate was therefore asked to give a notice by registered post AD and the next date for hearing was fixed on 24.02.2010. The above Applications appeared on board on 24.02.2010 when Shri Menezes informed the Court that he has sent notices by registered AD, informing the Applicants of the date of hearing however, he has not received the AD cards. Shri Menezes further pointed out to the Court that the Applicants had contacted him on telephone and that he -3- has informed them of the date of hearing being 24.02.2010. The Applications, therefore, were adjourned to 26.02.2010 i.e. today. The learned Advocate Shri Menezes, has now filed an Application dated 24.02.2010, wherein he has mentioned the aforesaid facts of having sent the notice by registered AD but has not as yet received the AD cards. It has further been mentioned that the Applicants, in each of the Applications, contacted him on telephone and that he had informed them that the above Applications would be on board on 24.02.2010 and that they should remain present in Court. The copy of the notice issued and the receipt issued by the postal authorities is appended to the aforesaid Application. 3. In view of the fact that the Applicants have been noticed by a letter sent by registered post AD, they are deemed to have received the said notice. Apart from the said notice, as mentioned herein above, the Applicants have also been informed by telephone by Shri Menezes of the date of hearing, which was to be on 24.02.2010, when they had contacted him. The fact that the Applicants contacted Shri Menezes, also indicates that they have received the registered letters. Hence, inspite of having been informed of the date of hearing, the Applicants have neither engaged an Advocate nor have remained present in Court either on 24.02.2010 or even today. The conduct of the Applicants, therefore, shows the utter callousness and negligence with which they are prosecuting the above proceedings and it appears that the Applicants are not interested in prosecuting the above Applications. -4- 4. The Revision Applications were also dismissed for default at the final hearing stage. The above Applications are, therefore, dismissed for non- prosecution on account of the non-appearance of the Applicants. The Applications for restoration, therefore, do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*