1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1195 OF 2008 srk Bansilal Gandhi ..Petitioner. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Shashi K. Jain for Petitioner. Ms. A.T. Javeri, A.P.P. for Respondent no.1/State. None for the Respondent no.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner was appointed as Chairman and Director of M.P.S.I.D.C.Ltd. by an order dated 8th July, 2002 passed by Madhya Pradesh Government. The Respondent No.2-Bank who is the complainant had deposited amount of Rs. 100 Crores with M.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. in three different stages in the year 1998 and 1999 as fixed deposits. On 06.08.2002 M.P.S.I.D.C. issued a cheque of Rs.50 Crores in favour of the complainant. 2 The cheque was signed by the Deputy General Manager of the M.P.S.I.D.C.Ltd. The cheque was presented for encashment but it was dishonoured. Thereafter, notice was issued and served on all the accused persons including the present Petitioner. Still no payment was made. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint on 30.09.2002. It was registered as Case No. 1080 of 2002. The learned Magistrate issued process in the same. The process was served on the present Petitioner sometimes in the year 2003 but date is not on record. 3 He filed Criminal Application before this court in the year 2005 for quashing the process. However, that application was rejected on the ground that efficacious remedy of Revision was available. By the order dated 19th December, 2005 passed by this Court, the Petitioner was granted six weeks time to file Revision Application and direction was given that till such time no precipitative action be taken against the applicants. The Petitioner filed Revision Application No. 1514 of 2007 with an Application was for condonation of delay on 22nd March, 2007. That Application came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 17th October, 2007 on the ground that there was a delay of three years and seven months, for which there was no explanation. That order is challenged in the present Petition. 3 4 The Revision Application could have been filed within 90 days from the date when the process were served. However, it appear that the Petitioner had initially filed an Application before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for recalling the process. That application was rejected. Thereafter, he filed an application before this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was rejected on 19.12.2005 and he was granted six weeks time to file Revision Application. If he would have filed the Revision Application within six weeks, the Sessions Court was directed to decide the Revision Application on its own merit and then Sessions Court could not go into the question of limitation. However, the Petitioner did not file the Revision Application within six weeks time. 5 As noted above, the Revision Application was filed on 22nd March, 2007, that is, almost 15 months after the order was passed by this Court. In view of this, the benefit given by this court could not be availed by the Applicant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the period of limitation should be computed from the date when the process was served. Even if it is assumed that before 19.12.2005, the time was spent in prosecuting the Application for recalling the process before the concerned the Magistrate and then the Application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 4 before this Court, the period till 19th December, 2005 could be excluded. If from 19.12.2005 the period of limitation is counted, still there was a delay of more than one year in filing the Revision Application. The only reason which was given was that the Petitioner resides at Bhopal and Mandsaur and therefore, he could not pursue the matter within time. This could be hardly any explanation for the delay. Infact, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances also, merely because he was appointed by the Government could not absolve him from the responsibility under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly because he was not one of the so many directors, who was not responsible for carrying out the business of the company. He was himself Chairman and Director and the cheque was issued during his tenure and it was also dishonoured during the said period. Even after that, notice was served on him but inspite of service of notice, payment was not made. 6 Taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstance, I find no substance in the present Application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 7 Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5 8 The observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case before the trial court. [ J.H. BHATIA, J. ]