1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.)NO.526 OF 2009 Shri Mahavir Shripal Kinikar ..... Applicant vs. Sangli District Central Co-op. ..... Respondents Bank Ltd. & Ors. Mr.P.D. Pise, Advocate for applicant. Mr.Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for respondent. Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for State. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 25th August, 2009. PC : 1. Heard both the counsels. This application is for condonation of 42 days delay in filing the revision application. For the reasons stated in the Criminal application, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. 2. The applicant had filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli against respondent no.1, Co-operative Bank and some of its Executive Directors, Chairman and office bearers under Section 29 of The Securitisation and “Re- construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Said Act). It is alleged by the applicant therein that respondent no. 1-Bank has 2 contravened Sections 13(4), 13(2) and 13(1) of the said Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 29 of the said Act. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the contents of the complaint supported by the verification and statement on oath, was of the view that the applicant had made out prima facie case and issued process against the respondents. The order of issuance of process was challenged by respondent in Criminal Revision Application No.171 of 2008. By the detailed order dated 10th February 2009, the Sessions Court, Sangli allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order of issuance of process against the respondents. The applicant has therefore filed the present Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of the District Court. 3. It is the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 bank resorted to the provisions of the said Act, though the same are not attracted to the transaction between the applicant and respondent no.1 and therefore according to him, their act is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. 4. Section 29 of the Act reads as under : “29.Offences :- If any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both”. 3 Bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant are misconceived. Non application of the provisions of the said Act cannot be equated to contravention of provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no error or illegality with the impugned order. The application is rejected. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.]