1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : February 25, 2010 1. Heard Advocate Shri Mundhe, holding for Advocate Shri S.T. Veer for the applicant. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 267 days in filing application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal. 3. Present applicant has filed private complaint against Respondent No.1 for committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing S.C.C. No.5868 of 2006 in the court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. The case was decided on 2 17.2.2009. 4. It is stated in the application that within sixty days, application for leave to file appeal ought to have been made, but there was delay. In paragraph 5 of the application, it is stated that the trial was protracted for a period of four years mainly because of delay on the part of the accused and for his non-cooperation. It is stated that accused resorted to dilatory tactics because of which, the complainant could not keep track on the matter. 5. In the meantime, on 17.2.2009 the said criminal case was decided. Copy of roznama is not produced. It is not stated when the evidence was over and arguments were advanced. It is also not alleged that judgment was not delivered immediately after the arguments were concluded. So, the blame is attempted to be put on the respondent-accused. 3 6. In paragraph 7, it is further stated that the applicant in the meantime was not feeling well and in November 2009 he approached his Advocate and learnt about the decision. No medical certificate is produced. It is not stated what was the illness and whether the illness was of such serious nature which prevented the applicant to approach his Advocate earlier. It is stated that the applicant-complainant applied for copy of the judgment on 16.1.2010 and received the same on 22.1.2010 and present application is filed on 4.2.2010. 7. Not being satisfied with the reasons, this application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 8. Hence, application dismissed. pnd/criap621.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)