1 crwp995.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 995 OF 2010 Praful s/o Mulchand Jain, age 39 years, occ.business, r/o Yash Electronics, Behind Sadia Talkies, New Dalalwadi Road, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad ...Petitioner VERSUS 1) Abdul Sameer s/o Abdul Sajed, age 23 yrs., occ. Business, r/o Rauf Palace, Near Chelipura Police Chowki, Aurangabad, 2) State of Maharashtra, through D.G.P.,Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Shri J.V.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner Shri S.S.Kazi, advocate for respondent no. 1 Shri S.V.Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14 th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 This petition is filed by the petitioner (original accused) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order 2 crwp995.10 dated 9.9.2010, passed by the learned 6 th District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, regarding non-registration of Criminal Revision Application be set aside and the said learned Judge be directed to register the said Criminal Revision Application. 3 It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in electronic goods as well as development of properties at Aurangabad and was having friendly relations with respondent no.1 i.e. original complainant. Respondent no.1 gave hand loan of Rs. Five Lacks to the petitioner on 15.12.2008 for the short term of 15 days on the request of the petitioner to overcome the financial needs and personal problems of the petitioner. Accordingly, after lapse of 15 days, respondent no.1 demanded the said loan amount from the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner issued cheque no. 16622, dated 2.1.2009 for Rs.Five Lacks to respondent no.1, drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Aurangabad. Accordingly, respondent no.1 presented the said cheque for encashment purpose, but same was dishonoured and was returned unpaid. Hence, respondent no.1 gave notice to the petitioner on 1.2.2009 and demanded the petitioner the said amount of the cheque. However, the petitioner herein failed to comply with the requisitions contained in the said notice. Hence, respondent no.1 filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing S.C.C. 3 crwp995.10 No. 1585 of 2009 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. 4 Accordingly, the verification of the complainant was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad on 30.4.2009 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, issued the process against the petitioner on same day. 5 It is the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the said complaint on 26.4.2010 when the police constable came on his address with the summons of the court. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad on the same day and furnished the surety and obtained bail. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order of issuance of process on 17.5.2010 and obtained the said certified copy on 31.7.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application on 6.8.2010 challenging the order of issuance of process on various grounds as mentioned therein, before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6 However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the registration of the said Criminal Revision Application was refused by 4 crwp995.10 the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad being barred by limitation by order dated 9.9.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 9.9.2010, the petitioner/original accused has preferred the present Criminal Writ Petition challenging the same and prayed for quashment thereof. 7 Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the office of the learned Sessions Judge raised the objection regarding limitation contending that the said Criminal Revision Application was filed after the lapse of period of limitation and said objection was placed before the 6th District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, but the petitioner pointed out that he has filed the petition within limitation from the date of knowledge to the petitioner. However, the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge did not consider the said crucial point and refused the registration of the said Criminal Revision Application, by passing the order dated 9.9.2010 illegally. In the said context, it is the contention of the petitioner that if the days required for obtaining the certified copy are excluded, Criminal Revision Application was filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, and therefore, the petitioner did not find any need for filing separate application for condonation of delay. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge ignored the 5 crwp995.10 basic fact that the computation of limitation commences from the date of knowledge as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and passed the impugned order dated 9.9.2010 incorrectly, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 8 To substantiate the said contention Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of Gauhati University vs Niharlal Bhattacharjee, reported at 1995 (6) SCC 731, and contended that where the summons or notice of the suit was not duly served, the period of limitation will start from the date of knowledge of the decree and submitted that the same ratio is required to be applied in the instant case. 9 Shri S.S.Kazi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge has observed in the impugned order dated 9.9.2010 that the applicant's counsel has furnished certain documents to show that he has applied for bail and was released on bail and the applicant was asked to furnish the documents when he was served with summons of the lower court and copy of that summons be filed on record, but such type of documents are not filed on record. Hence, for want of documents, it 6 crwp995.10 could not be considered that the Revision Application is filed within limitation, and therefore, registration of the said Criminal Revision Application was refused due to bar of limitation. 10 According to Shri Kazi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, the petitioner herein failed to furnish the requisite documents before the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge when he was asked to produce the proof in respect of service of summons of the lower court and copy of summons thereof, and therefore, the petitioner herein failed to establish the date of knowledge before the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge, and hence, on both the said counts, the registration of the said Criminal Revision Application was refused by the court rightly due to bar of limitation and no interference therein is called for in the writ jurisdiction. 11 Learned counsel for respondent no.1 also canvassed that the petitioner herein failed to file any application for condonation of delay along with the said Criminal Revision Application, as well as the petitioner has not made any prayer in Criminal Revision Application for condonation of delay, and as such, learned 6th District & Sessions Judge has rightly refused the registration of Criminal Revision Application and no interference is warranted therein under the writ jurisdiction. 7 crwp995.10 12 Shri Kazi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 relied upon the following judicial pronouncements :- 1 Ballumal A. Jaisingh vs M/s J.J.Builders and ors. 2003 (3) Mh. L.J. 238 2 Waghjai Devi Endowment Trust & ors. Vs Sanjiv Kashinath Vare and ors., 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. 671 3 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai vs Prabhawati Harkishindas Gehani and ors. 2006 (4) Mh.L.J.103 13 Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as after considering the observations made in the afore said judicial pronouncements, cited by both the learned counsel for the parties carefully, at the out set, it is apparent that Article 131 of the Limitation Act prescribes the limitation of 90 days for preferring the Revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the date of order or sentence sought to be revised. Keeping in mind the said aspect and coming to the present matter, wherein the order of issuance of process was passed on 30.4.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, but Criminal Revision Application came to be filed by 8 crwp995.10 the petitioner before the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge on 6.8.2010, and there is no dispute that the period required for obtaining the certified coy of the concerned order deserves to be excluded. In the said context, admittedly the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order of issuance of process on 17.5.2010 and obtained the said certified copy on 31.7.2010 and even after excluding approximately the said period of 2½ months from the period between 30.4.2009 to 6.8.2010, it is apparently clear that Criminal Revision Application filed by the petitioner before the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge on 6.8.2010 was barred by limitation, in view of Article 131 of the Limitation Act. 14 Besides that, it is explicitly clear from the impugned order dated 9.9.2010, passed by the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge thereby refusing the registration of said Criminal Revision Application that the petitioner was instructed to furnish documents when he was served with the summons of lower court and was also instructed to produce the copy of the said summons to enable the court to know exactly when the petitioner got knowledge and when he obtained the certified copy, but even the said documents were not filed by the petitioner on record before the learned Judge, and therefore, consequently, for want of said documents, the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge observed that it cannot be considered that the 9 crwp995.10 Revision is within limitation, and consequently, refused the registration of the said Revision Application due to bar of limitation. 15 Thus, it is apparent that the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge had given the opportunity to the petitioner, but he failed to avail the same, and therefore, the said impugned order cannot be faulted with. 16 Besides that, admittedly the petitioner herein has neither preferred any application for delay condonation nor made any prayer in Criminal Revision Application for condonation of delay, if any, and accordingly, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved the sufficient cause, by which he was prevented to file Criminal Revision Application earlier within the period of limitation allegedly from the date of knowledge, and therefore, in absence of such pleading and proof before the learned Judge, apparently there is no flaw in the impugned order, passed by the learned 6th District & Sessions Judge on 9.9.2010. 17 In the circumstances, present petition bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and no interference is called for in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and same, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 10 crwp995.10 18 In the result, present Criminal Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crwp995.10