IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1632 OF 2008 Shri.Subhas Ananda Sutar .. Applicants Vs. Shri.Rajesh R.Poyrekar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Manoj Bhat for the Applicants. Mr.Amardev J.Uniyal for Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th July 2008. P.C.: . Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned A.P.P for respondent No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The 1st respondent is the original complainant who filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant herein was arraigned as an accused in the said complaint. The trial ended in an order of conviction against the applicant. An appeal against the order of conviction was preferred by the applicant before the Sessions : 2 : Court. The roznama of the proceedings shows that the learned Sessions Judge heard the appeal finally on 27th December 2007 and the same was adjourned to 10th January 2008 for judgment. For various reasons, the judgment could not be pronounced and before the judgment was pronounced, the concerned learned Sessions Judge was transferred. When the appeal came up on board on 07th May, 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, he noted that the applicant was absent on earlier dates and the appeal was kept for dismissal on that day. As none appeared for the applicant, the appeal was dismissed in default. 3. Apart from the fact that the appeal against an order of conviction has been dismissed in default, the fact remains that the earlier learned Sessions Judge had heard the appeal on merits but the judgment could not be delivered as the learned Judge was transferred. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the disposal of the appeal has been delayed due to adjournments sought by the applicant and therefore a time bound schedule be fixed for hearing of the appeal. This submission is reasonable and the same deserves to be accepted. : 3 : 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 07th May 2008 is quashed and set aside and the Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2006 is restored to the file. (ii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane on Monday 28th July 2008 at 11.00 a.m for fixing the schedule of hearing. (iii) The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st October 2008. (iv) The learned Sessions Judge may himself hear the appeal or for administrative convenience, he is free to transfer the appeal to any other Court for final disposal. (v) It is made clear that parties will appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 28th July 2008 at 11.00 a.m and no separate notice of the date fixed shall be served to the parties. : 4 : (vi) The application is accordingly allowed. (vii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (viii) The parties and learned Sessions Judge to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)