1 appln3528-09 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3528 OF 2009 Juhu Resorts and Developments Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai, through Shri Akhilesh Dayaram Tiwari .. Applicant Vs. Ajay B. Dave of Ahmedabad and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Amol Patankar for the applicant Mr.J.P.Kharge, A.P.P. for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 2nd FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This application is filed by Original Complainant whose complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate s court on 24.3.06, for condonation of ’ delay of 1166 days in filing application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, as a result of dismissal of the complaint. 3. The applicant s complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ’ Act registered as Criminal Case No.4000/SS/2005 was dismissed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.03.2006. The applicant s case was ’ 2 appln3528-09 that their complaint was transferred from one court to another and they did not know that it was before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.03.2006 and as such they did not attend the hearing on that date and the complaint was dismissed in default. 4. It is the case of the applicant that they learnt about the dismissal of the complaint on 2.7.2009 and thereafter they applied on 24.7.09 for leave to appeal and as there was delay of 1166 days, they filed application for condonation of delay. 5. The case of the Complainant is that as the matter was being transferred from court to court, that could not keep trace on the various adjourned dates and hence they could not attend court on 24.3.06 when the complaint was dismissed in default and they also could not know about the dismissal of the complaint till 2.7.09 and as such there was sufficient cause for filing application for leave to appeal. 6. I have gone through the proceedings of the case. It is difficult to believe that the applicant s were prosecuting the matter with due diligence. The ’ ground put forward for condonation of delay is not acceptable and as such there is no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay of 1166 days. 7. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. (K.K. TATED, J.)