1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.144 OF 2008. Umesh S/o Rameshwar Roda ... Petitioner. Versus Abhay S/o Kantrao Kotgire ... Respondent. ... Mr.H.I. Pathan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Bora, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 28.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is original complainant. He filed private complaint case bearing SCC No. 596/2006, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, there was delay in filing of the complaint but the 2 complainant stated in paras 4 and 5 of his complaint as to why there was delay. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seems to have mechanically directed registration of the case and transferred the same to learned J.M.F.C. (Court No.I). The relevant order dated 20.3.2006 does not show, even remotely, that the explanation about the delay was considered by the learned C.J.M. before registration of the complaint. The petitioner was not examined U/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. The Respondent gave an application to the effect that the order to issue process may be recalled. The application came to be rejected and, therefore, the Respondent preferred a Revision Petition. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Revision Petition of the Respondent and remanded the matter to the trial Court for consideration of the complaint and to consider whether the delay could be condoned and cognizance could be taken in the circumstances obtained in the matter. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, 3 it is amply clear that there was no specific direction of the learned C.J.M. regarding condonation of the delay. The impugned order of the learned C.J.M. did not show that he applied judicial mind while taking cognizance when the complaint case was directed to be registered. It appears that mere mechanical order was passed and thereafter the case was transferred to the J.M.F.C. (Court I). In absence of any material on record about consideration of the question pertaining to condonation of delay, the said order was liable to be interfered with and particularly when the order did not reflect anything which showed that the delay had been condoned on merits. Further no notice was given to the Respondent prior to condonation of the delay. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality and arbitrariness. Hence, the petition is destitute of substance and is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp14408 4