1 appln 5181 of 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5181 OF 2010 Deepak Hiralal Shah .. Applicant. -versus Nilesh R Waghela .. Respondent. Mr. D. P. Jaiswal, for the Applicant. Mr. Manish Mazgaon, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 21st July, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of 15 days delay occasioned in filing an application for leave to file appeal, against acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has strong objection to the tenability of the application itself that such application is not at all tenable. According to him sub section 5 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1908 (for short called as “Code”) prescribes special limitation and since this limitation is prescribed in the Code, it would not be the period prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963 (for 2 appln 5181 of 2010 short called as “Act of 1963”). For this purpose, he wanted me to refer to the definition of ‘period of limitation’ in clause (j) of section 2 of Limitation Act. He also referred to section 29 of the Limitation Act and submitted that saving clause had no bearing to the controversy raised before this Court, since the limitation prescribed in sub section 5 of section 378 of the Code is not different from the period prescribed in the Act of 1963, in respect of the same item therefore, saving clause would not apply and Code would apply. 3. Fortunately this question has already been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sharmaji Textiles -vs- Sandeep Traders, 2009 All M.R. (Cri) 771, decided on 7th January, 2009. I do not see any reason to take a different view. 4. Applicant has stated that he could not prefer an appeal immediately because applicant’s mother was suffering from hypertension and she was admitted in the Hospital and therefore there was delay in filing application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 5. List the application for leave to appeal on 25.08.2011. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)