1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 438 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 3622 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 820 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 819 of 2009 [Shyamrao N. Sahare Vs. Marotrao G. Gorlewar] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Meshram, Adv., for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 121 days, caused in filing of application for restoration. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.S. Meshram for the applicant. None for the respondent, though served. 2 3. Accepting the reasons stated in the application to be good and sufficient, application is allowed. Delay caused in filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 1969 of 2009 is condoned. Judge |Hedau| 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Criminal Application No. 1969 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 820 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 819 of 2009 [Shyamrao N. Sahare Vs. Marotrao G. Gorlewar] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Meshram, Adv., for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.S. Meshram for the applicant. None for the respondent, though served. 2. Accepting the reasons contained in the application explaining the absence of the applicant, and in failure to remove the office objections, application is allowed. 3. Criminal Application No. 819 of 2009 is restored. Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 819 of 2009 [Shyamrao N. Sahare Vs. Marotrao G. Gorlewar] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Meshram, Adv., for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing of appeal 2. This Court had called upon learned Adv., for the applicant to argue the appeal on merits. It was considered that if some merit is found in the appeal, in that case, a common notice on the appeal and application for condonation of delay can be issued. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.S. Meshram for the applicant. 4. Perused the Judgment. 5. It is seen that the order of acquittal is based on a finding recorded in para 9 of the judgment which spells out that existence of 5 civil liability for which the cheque was given was not proved. 6. Learned Adv., for the applicant has urged that in the background of the fact that the cheque was dishonoured, due to the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was not necessary for the applicant to prove all these details. 7. On the other hand, what is seen from the discussion contained in para 8 of the Judgment is that the cheque, subject-matter, did not belong to the account of the accused. On this ground, the offence, if any, would be under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, but not under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. In this background of the facts, the appeal itself does not have merit. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay, else it would result in vexing the respondent. 9. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. 10. Appeal would naturally get dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 6