IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1283 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1283 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1283 OF 2007 Shri Chunilal R. Shah ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. M/s.Panchavati Valves & Flanges Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents (No.1 to 4 - orig. Accused) Mr.Amit Sheth for the Applicant. Mr.Vijay B. Dhingre for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 3. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that a complaint initially was pending before the learned Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai and later on, it was transferred to the Special Court of the learned Magistrate of the Small - 2 - Causes Court, Mumbai and the complaint was newly numbered as 311/SS/06. It is submitted that the complaint was dismissed on 9th October, 2006. It is submitted that after the case was transferred to the Magistrate’s Court of the Small Causes Court, no notice was given to him. He submitted that his Advocate who was practising in Girgaon Court could not attend the matter at Small Causes Court. It is further submitted that on 2-3 occasions, the applicant went to the Small Causes Court and made enquiry there, however, he was informed that the papers were not being traceable. It is submitted that there was no wilful default or negligence on the part his part and that he came to know about the said order on or about 20th November, 2006. He immediately filed an application for certified copy on 24th November, 2006 and the copy was made available on 11th December, 2006. He submitted that therefore, delay caused may be condoned. 4. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the said application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the applicant was aware that the case had - 3 - been transferred from Girgaon court to Small Causes Court. However, apart from making enquiries in the Small Causes Court, the applicant did not take any steps and after he came to know about impugned order on 20th November, 2006 after a lapse of four days, he filed an application for certified copy. He submitted that therefore, this application not be granted by this Court. 5. This submission unfortunately cannot be accepted. The fact remains that the complaint was transferred from Girgaon court to Small Causes Court and no notice admittedly was given to the applicant and for the fault of the Advocate, the applicant cannot be penalised. The cause shown by the applicant is a sufficient cause and therefore, delay is liable to be condoned. 6. Application is, accordingly, allowed. Delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. 7. Place the application for leave on board on - 4 - Monday, 20th October, 2008. High on Board. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)