1 APPLN-205-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 205OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Zulelal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. ... Applicant vs. Thinking Machines Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Harshad Sathe, i/b Harshad Bhadbhade,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Ajay R.Varma, i/b. H.E.Palwe, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.3 State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 12th October, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. That complaint came to be dismissed and the accused were acquitted by the order dated 25.7.2006. Against that order, the applicant filed Revision Application No. 411/2006 before the sessions Judge, Nashik. That Revision Application was dismissed on 22.2.2010 on the ground that when the remedy of appeal is available, 2 APPLN-205-11.sxw the Revision Application would not lie. Thereafter, this appeal is filed along with the application for condontion of delay of 4 years and 141 days. 3. According to the applicant,after the revision application was rejected on 22.2.2010, the application for copy of that order was moved on 29.3.2010. The certified copy was received on 16.4.2010. However, the application for leave to file appeal with this application for condonation of delay was filed on 29.7.2010. There is no satisfactory explanation why there was delay of one month for filing application for certified copy. Further, having received the certified copy on 16.4.2010, there is no satisfactory explanation why there was delay of more than three months in filing this application. According to the applicant, it was because of the internal disputes in the management and therefore decision could not be taken earlier to file appeal. This cannot be a satisfactory reason. The applicant is a Co-operative Society and under the Co-operative Societies Act, there is no period of limitation for filing a dispute or for taking action under Section 101 of the Act. Therefore, no injustice would be caused to the applicant if the delay is not condoned. 4. In view of the above circumstances, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)