2008cwp365.09.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 365 OF 2009 Sohanlal Maikudas Bhagat aged about 55 yrs., r/o Ravidas Nagar, Yerkheda, Kamptee, Tah. Kamptee, Nagpur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Virendra Tarachand Mehta aged about 40 yrs., r/o Suraj Apartment, 307 Telephone Exchange, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D. C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. D. K. Gawali, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 20TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. : 1. The petitioner has filed petition challenging order dated 20/6/2009 passed in Misc. Criminal revisional Application No. 264 of 2009. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur being Criminal Complaint Case No. 12020 of 2006. The learned Magistrate passed order dated 15/6/2006 granting process against the petitioner. Before this Court, it is stated that the process was served on the petitioner in August, 2006, thereafter, petitioner attended to the matter and at one stage he applied for certified copy of the order 2008cwp365.09.odt 2/4 dated 15/6/2006 which he states that he received it on 17/9/2008. According to him 17/9/2008 is the date when he came to know about the order of issuance of process. He, thereafter filed writ petition No. 734 of 2008 in this Court. That petition was allowed to be withdrawn in the month of January, 2009 giving liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the Sessions Court. It was also mentioned that the learned Sessions Judge would consider the time spent by the applicant in approaching this Court. The petitioner, thereafter filed revision in the Sessions Court of 02/02/2009 for condonation of delay which came to be rejected by order dated 20/6/2009 which order is impugned in this petition. 3. I have extensively heard the learned Advocates on both sides on the question of correctness of order dated 20/6/2009. The submission advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the order of issuance of process when he received certified copy of the said order on 17/9/2008 is incorrect in as much as the petitioner has admitted in paragraph No. 3 of the application for condonation of delay that he had moved the application before the trial Court on 07/3/2008 seeking direction against the respondent that he should supply copy of exhibited documents. This will mean that the petitioner was very much before the learned trial Judge. In such a case the petitioner cannot say that he had no knowledge of order dated 15/6/2009. This will mean that the petitioner took about 21/2 years to approach this Court so as to challenge the order of issuance of process. After disposal of the petition in January, 2009, the petitioner filed the revision on 02/02/2009. 4. Considering the manner in which the petitioner has attended to the present case, it is apparent that petitioner is indolent. The ground given by the 2008cwp365.09.odt 3/4 petitioner to seek condonation of delay that his earlier Advocate had advised him to settle the matter, and therefore, the order of issuing process was not challenged. In my view, this reason cannot be considered in favour of the petitioner. If at all, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, he should have moved the Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of limitation or soon thereafter by giving appropriate reasons for delay. The delay sought to be made out, cannot be accepted as a delay which could be condoned particularly because it is noticed that the trial is in progress before the learned Magistrate. The observation of this Court that time spent by the petitioner in approaching this Court would be considered by the Sessions Court would mean that the petitioner would be able to get some concession with reference to January, 2009 till February, 2009 and not for the period August, 2006, i. e. the date when the petitioner came to know about issuance of process till January, 2009, which period is about 21/2 years. Hence, the petition cannot get benefit of the delay occasioned in filing revision cannot be condoned. 5. A grievance was made that the petitioner was not heard. This grievance is without any substance in as much as the impugned order states that the petitioner was heard. If this be so, the petitioner was heard at the stage of condonation of delay application and to that extent also the petitioner is unsuccessful. 6. Considering the entire matter with reference to dates mentioned above, this is not a fit case where Court should intervene in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. I had enquired with the learned Advocate for the petitioner as to whether he is interested in having the trial 2008cwp365.09.odt 4/4 finished early so that appropriate order can be passed. He declined to accept the same. Hence, the order: Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE wwl