IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 1769 OF 2009 SANATAN FINANCERS AND REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ... Applicant Versus KRISHNA SINGH ... Respondent Shri V. Parsekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 2nd September, 2009 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. The Applicant/Appellant herein is the complainant before the learned trial Court. On account of absence of the said complainant on 21-10-2008 and 4-11-2008, the complaint came to be dismissed, which had the effect of an acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant instead of filing an appeal/leave to appeal, filed a revision application against the Order of dismissal to the Court of Sessions at Margao which came to be dismissed by Order dated 24-2-2009. It is on that count the application for condonation of delay has now been filed in preferring special leave to appeal on the ground that the said revision application came to be filed on account of wrong advice given by the counsel of the complainant. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent has submitted that the Applicant has not even tried to find out what is the delay involved in filing the application for special leave to appeal. The very fact that the complainant filed a revision before the Court of Sessions shows that it was filed under wrong advice for which either of the parties ought not to be made to suffer. Certainly, the Respondent/Accused was put in inconvenience and must have defended the said proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge at a considerable cost for which he needs to be compensated. Nevertheless, considering the facts of the case, the delay is condoned and the application is granted subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. Let the appeal be registered forthwith. From the perusal of the records, it does not appear that either on the said two dates the case of the complainant was fixed for trial and it appears that the accused was still in the process of furnishing bail bonds and in the light of that, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have been justified, in dismissing the complaint on 4-11-2008 when it was not fixed for the purpose of recording the evidence of the complainant. Consequently, the Order dated 4-12-2008 dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside and both the parties are hereby directed to remain present before the learned trial Court on 10th instant at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings in the said criminal complaint. As already stated the complainant to pay to the accused a sum of Rs.5000/-. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.