1 crap840.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 840 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 841 OF 2011 Nitin s/o Sumatilal Sanghavi ...Applicant VERSUS Sou. Varsha Nandkishor Pathak ...Respondent ..... Shri D.B.Shinde h/f Shri N.L.Choudhari, advocate for applicant Shri H.V.Tungar h/f Shri C.R.Deshpande, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25 th April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 91 days caused in filing accompanying Criminal Application seeking leave to file appeal. 2 crap840.11 3 The applicant submits that the delay caused in filing the application seeking leave to file appeal is unintentional and has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances and due to lack of knowledge of legal procedure. The applicant also submits that he was unaware about further legal steps which were required to be taken for challenging the said judgment and order of acquittal, and when the applicant got knowledge of remedy of filing application for seeking leave to file appeal against the the said judgment and order, the applicant started making all the efforts for engaging advocate, for arranging cash for filing appeal, etc. and immediately after making necessary arrangements, the applicant approached the advocate at High Court and filed present application, which resulted into 91 days delay in filing the said application. The applicant also submits that he has a very good case on merits and has hopes to succeed in the matter, and hence, submitted that the application be allowed and delay of 91 days caused in filing application seeking leave to file appeal be condoned. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has made vague statements in the present application and no particulars have been given, as to on which date the applicant applied for certified copy of the judgment, on which date the said copy was ready and on 3 crap840.11 which date he received the certified copy thereof. Moreover, the applicant has not given the particulars of the dates, on which he got the knowledge about the remedy of filing the application seeking leave to file appeal after the dismissal of Summary Criminal Case No. 3133 of 2007 filed by the applicant. 5 Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay caused in filing the application seeking leave to file appeal is willful, deliberate and intentional, and hence, same cannot be condoned, and hence, present application deserves to be dismissed. 6 Besides, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the court is inclined to grant the present application, in that event, heavy costs be saddled upon the applicant. 7 After considering the contents of the application and considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, at the out set, it is apparent that the impugned judgment and order, dismissing Summary Criminal Case No. 3133 of 2007 filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was passed on 6.9.2010, but the applicant has nowhere stated that on which date he applied for certified copy thereof, on which date the 4 crap840.11 said copy was ready and on which date the same was received by him. Moreover, the applicant has not given specific dates on which he got knowledge about the legal steps which were required to be taken after dismissal of Summary criminal Case No. 3133 of 2007 and on which date he approached to the advocate for seeking legal advice, and on which date he arranged cash for filing the present application. In substance, the averments made in the present application are vague and ambiguous, and therefore, in fact, present application deserves to be dismissed. 8 However, it appears that the delay of 91 days has been caused in filing the application seeking leave to file appeal. Moreover, opportunity is required to be given to the applicant to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order, dated 6.9.2010, and hence, the delay of 91 days caused in filing the present application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, but simultaneously, the respondents deserve to be compensated aptly by way of saddling costs upon the applicant, which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-. 9 In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 91 days caused in filing the application seeking leave to file appeal shall stand condoned, subject 5 crap840.11 to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- by the applicant to the respondent, within the period of two weeks, and present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap840.11