[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.71 OF 2007 IN APPLN.NO. OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 M/s.Parle Sales Services Pvt.Ltd. ..Applicants Vs. Harish Datta & Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.S.M.Fadia Advocate for applicants Mr.Prakash Naik Adv. for Respondent No.1 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Respondent No.1. The impugned order was passed in the said case by the learned Magistrate on 16.10.2004 whereby the respondent no.1-accused came to be discharged/acquitted. The applicant [-2-] preferred Criminal Application No. 337 of 2007 challenging the said order for acquittal/discharge. As there was delay in filing the said application, present application for condonation of delay has been filed. It is seen that there is 761 days delay. However, the learned counsel for the applicant states that they got knowledge of the order only on 29.1.2005. Even if the delay is computed from that date, it comes to 648 days. No sufficient cause has been made out in respect of the said delay. Hence, application for condonation of delay is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]