(1) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 4499/2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO:854/2008 (Suresh Marotrao Ghumde vs. Digambar Ahirkar and another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ............................................................................................................................ CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 27 th July, 2009. 1. Heard Mr Sachin Zoting, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr S.S. Nandanwar, learned counsel for respondent 1. 2. By this application, the applicant prayed for condonation of delay for about 53 days in filing Special Leave to Appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umrer in Complaint Case No.658/2008 decided on 20/8/2008 whereby the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed and the accused was acquitted. The present applicant is seeking to challenge the said acquittal with an application for Special Leave under section 178(4) and, for that purpose, prayed for condonation of delay. 2. According to the applicant, he was suffering from arthritis and was under treatment of Dr. Surkar from 5.9.2008 to 15.11.2008 and also refers to a xerox copy of certificate issued on 8.12.2008 which indicate that the applicant was suffering from Hepatitis ‘c’. 3. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant opposed condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant was present along with his Advocate on 20/8/2008 when non-applicant ( original accused ) was acquitted by the judgment and order sought to be impugned. It is also contended that the application do not spell out sufficient cause as medical certificate sought to be relied upon itself contradicts the applicant. The contention in the application is otherwise. There is difference between arthritis and hepatitis ‘c’. Even otherwise, these diseases do not require bed rest for one and a half months or any hospitalization as an indoor patient. Learned Advocate for the non- applicant contended that due to lethargy and non-diligence on the part of the applicant, delay ought not to be condoned as application is devoid of merits. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. No sufficient case is made out to condone the delay as the averments in the application and the certificate sought to be relied upon appears to be contradictory to each other. Hence Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare