vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 Shri Amit Banwarilal Saini ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.R. Chitnis i/b Sabeena Mahadik for Petitioner Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 19, 2008 JUNE 19, 2008 JUNE 19, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai as well as the order passed by the 7th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge in revision. These orders have been passed on an application filed by the complainant for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. The two Courts below have taken the view that the delay has been properly explained by the complainant. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the medical certificate indicates that the complainant was not in good health and was suffering from fever from 13.4.2007 to 25.4.2007. This certificate according to the learned counsel has been produced only in October 2007 and not when the application for condonation of delay was filed. : 2 : 2. According to him, therefore, this goes to the root of the matter and the application ought to have been dismissed by the Courts below. He then relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Builders v/s. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 321 (2008) 2 SCC 321 (2008) 2 SCC 321 wherein the Supreme Court has taken the view that the provisions of the criminal law must be strictly construed. 3. The judgment of the Supreme Court was in respect of the delay caused in sending a notice of demand under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is in the light of those facts that the Supreme Court has observed that the provisions must be strictly considered. 4. There is a provision of law for condoning the delay in filing the complaint under section 138 of the Act. Two Courts below have applied their mind and in my opinion rightly, condoning the delay of 12 days in filing the complaint. 5. Petition is therefore, rejected.