rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMIAL APPLICATION NO. 3113 OF 2007 CRIMIAL APPLICATION NO. 3113 OF 2007 CRIMIAL APPLICATION NO. 3113 OF 2007 Vishnudas Ramkrisha Rathi .. Applicant V/s. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.A.Waradkar for the Applicant. Mr.J.P. Yagnik - A.P.P. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Respondent Bank filed a complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act against present Applicant and others for dishonour of a cheque. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Trial Court issued process on 11th January, 1999. The Applicant did not challenge the said order but however applied for discharge / recalling of the issue of process on 21st November, 2002. Trial Court rejected the application for recalling of the process by placing reliance on the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Adalat Adalat Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. (2004) Supreme Court Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. (2004) Supreme Court Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. (2004) Supreme Court Cases 338 Cases 338 Cases 338 case holding that the Magistrate has no power 2 to recall the order of issue of process. The said order came to be passed by the Trial Court on 3rd June, 2005. Belatedly, the said order which is passed on the basis of Judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad Adalat Prasad Adalat Prasad (Supra) (Supra) (Supra) case was sought to be challenged by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge and as there was a delay of 203 days, an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. Application seeking condonation of delay came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge by holding that the applicant has failed to show a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the application for condonation of delay this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is filed, wherein, incidently a challenge is also made to the correctness of the order of issue of process passed by the Trial Court in the year 1999. Perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference after about a period of almost ten years has gone by from the date of issue of process. No intnereference is called for. Hence, application is rejected. However, it is made clear that all contentions raised in the present application touching the merit of the matter are kept open to be agitated during trial. Application disposed of. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)