1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 824 OF 2009 Ratneshwar Babu Jha ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Janardhan Jha for the petitioner Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 24th November 2009 P.C. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November 2008 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Daman rejecting his application for condonation of delay. 2. A criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner by the respondent no.2 for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The process was issued by the learned Magistrate on 23rd August 2007. The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate for issuance of a process by filing a revision before the Court of Sessions on 20th June 2008 along with an application for 2 condonation of delay. The application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. That order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has given two reasons for rejecting the application. He has firstly held that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause as required by section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, he has held that the revision application was an attempt to delay the trial and was not made in good faith. I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for the following reasons 4. The only reason given for condonation of delay is found in paragraph no.8 of the delay condonation application which reads thus:- 8. The applicant states that the applicant is a Businessman and the applicant, therefore in his day-to-day affairs of the said business, and also the applicant has not aware about the procedure of the Court and therefore, the delay of ........ days in making the present Criminal Revision application may kindly be condoned. (the number of days of delay is kept blank in the original application itself) It is to be noted that the only reason to be given for condonation of delay is that he is a businessman and was busy in his day-to-day affairs and therefore could not file the revision within time. In my view, this is no ground for condonation of delay that too when the delay is not 3 small but of several months. The learned Sessions Judge, has also held that the revision application was filed only for the purpose of delaying the trial before the Magistrate. This finding is not challenged before me. 5. Learned counsel, relying upon the decision of this court in Basantlal H. Ahuja Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007(2) BCR 425 submitted that the Court must adopt liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay. There is no doubt in the proposition and Courts do adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay. But that however does not mean that even where there is no justifiable cause at all still the delay must be condoned. The petitioner claims to be a businessman and busy in his business as the only ground for condonation. In my view, this is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay and that too of several months especially in the background of the fact that the impugned order was arising out of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the Revision Application was filed only with a view to delay the trial. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)