1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.2129/2009 (Sk. Mehboob s/o Shaikh Hussain .vrs. The Akola Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and one ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.I. Mirza, Advocate for applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2009 1. Heard. 2. By the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has questioned and prayed for quashing/setting aside order dated 17.4.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejecting application preferred by him for extending time to furnish surety in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2009 preferred by him against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded on 2.3.2009 by learned JMFC, Court No.2, Akola in SCC No. 2 9396/2004. The prayer for extending time to furnish the surety is also made in the petition. 3. In the said case applicant/accused was found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and was sentenced to suffer three months imprisonment by said judgment and order. The applicant/accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No.26/2009 before the Court of Sessions at Akola and moved an application for suspension of sentence and for releasing him on bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide order dated 31.3.2009 has stayed the sentence passed by the lower court and has directed the appellant to give the solvent surety of Rs. 20,000/- in trial court within 15 days from the date of the order. 4. The appellant/accused had moved application for extension of time granted for furnishing the surety by moving application on 17.4.2009 and the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by order passed on the same day. 5. Though learned counsel for the applicant has attempted to assail order passed impugned in the petition on the count of the same being hypertechnical 3 and or without taking into consideration the illness of the surety proposed to be furnished, the same not advancing cause of justice and or being caused grave prejudice to the applicant, after taking into consideration the fact that sufficient time of 15 days was already given to the applicant for furnishing surety, himself being not ordered to furnish particular surety, the application preferred by him not revealing of himself being unable to furnish any other surety; his failure to submit surety within the time given to him and furthermore his failure to apply for extension before the expiry of the time given to him, it is difficult to accept of their being any merit in the criticism advanced. Needless to add that considering all the relevant facets it is difficult to find any fault with the order impugned in the petition even otherwise. As such there being no merits in the petition the same will be required to be dismissed. 6. However, having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant at bar that the applicant/appellant was on bail during the proceeding before the trial court and it may take some time for hearing and deciding the appeal preferred by him on merit, non granting time to the applicant to 4 furnish the solvent surety may cause undue hardship to him, further time deserves to be granted in interest of justice only after taxing him for the default committed by him and so also for his failure to act diligently in complying the orders passed by the Court at his behest. The same would be necessary for serving the ends of justice as justice is not only required to be done but it must appear to have been done. Hence, upon applicant/appellant depositing the costs of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur within ten days from the date of this order, the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on Exh.8 is hereby modified and time to furnish the solvent surety before the trial court is extended up till the end of June, 2009. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE gulande