1 APPLN 4792/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4792 OF 2009 M/s R.R. Enterprises ..... Applicants. V/s M/s Marvin Chemicals Corporation and Others ..... Respondents. Mr. I.M. Tailor for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE :6th December, 2010 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Delay is of 3 years and 38 days. Only ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that the complainant had shifted to Hyderabad permanently and, therefore, he could not remain present on 10/07/2006 when the matter was kept for filing of evidence. It is submitted that, thereafter, he could not contact his advocate and, therefore, he lost track of the matter and that even his advocate did not inform him about progress of the case. It is 2 APPLN 4792/09 submitted that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji and others1 and in State of Karnataka vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi2. 3. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted. On dismissal of the complaint, substantive right accrues in favour of the accused and such a right cannot be taken away in a casual manner. The complainant has to show that he was diligent in pursuing his remedy and for certain unavoidable reasons which were beyond his control, he could not apply for setting aside the impugned order in time. There cannot be any dispute about the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. In the present case, delay, however, is of 3 years and 38 days. The explanation that the applicant had shifted to Hyderabad and, therefore, could not contact his advocate cannot be accepted. There is no material on record to show that the applicant had informed his advocate that he was shifting permanently to Hyderabad and, as such, his advocate also could not have contacted him. Applicant, therefore, was not diligent in pursuing the complaint which he had filed. In my view, Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint by exercising its discretion under 1 AIR 1987 SC 1353 2 AIR 2009 SC 2577 3 APPLN 4792/09 section 256 of the Cr.P.C. No case is made out for condonation of delay. Application is, therefore, dismissed. V.M. KANADE, J.