..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2007 Mr.Laxmi Narayan Goyal and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.P.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for State. Mr.Rajesh S. Patil, Adv. for respondent No.2. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners - orig.accused, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 - orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The complainant filed complaint being C.C. No.1543/SS/2005 (Old case No. 541/S/2003). The said case was pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. In the said complaint, process came to be issued against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable ..(2).. Instruments Act. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Revision being Criminal Revision Application (Stamp) No.5611 of 2005. It appears that there was some delay in preferring Criminal Revision Application, hence, Criminal Misc. Application No.1006 of 2005 came to be preferred by the present petitioners. By order dated 19.1.2006 the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order : "Ms.Joshi, APP for State present. Mr.Mishra Advocate for the applicant present. Heard. No case made out, dismissed." 3. From the order it does not appear that the learned Judge was dealing only with the delay application but it appears that the order was passed mainly in the revision application. It appears that by the said order, the learned Sessions Judge disposed of not only the delay condonation application,but also Criminal Revision Application. No reasons at all have been given by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision application. It is just and appropriate that some ..(3).. reasons are given while disposing of the revision, for the higher court to ascertain whether the revision has been rightly dismissed or not. As no reasons at all have been given, I am inclined to set-aside the said order. Accordingly the order dated 19.1.2006 is set-aside. Criminal Revision Application (Stamp) No.5611 of 2005 as well as Criminal Misc.Application No.1006 of 2005 are restored to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. The delay of 92 days in preferring Revision Application is condoned. Thus, Criminal Misc.Application No.1006 of 2005 is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision by a reasoned order. The parties to appear before the Sessions Court on 17th January, 2009. The hearing of the said Revision is expedited. 4. With the above directions, Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)