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 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.280 of 2006. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.280 of 2006. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.280 of 2006. alongwith alongwith alongwith CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2006. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2006. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2006. Tanaji B. Patil ..Applicant versus Deepak S. Hivale & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.G.M.Savagave for the Applicant None for the respondent No.1 Mr.K.V.Saste for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. P.C. 1. According to the applicant, the respondent No.1 had issued two cheques which came to be dishonoured and that is how the applicant wanted to file cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant had filed cases against him, however those cases were beyond the period of limitation and as such applicant had filed two applications being Misc. Application No.66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 so as to seek condonation of delay in filing the criminal cases. The facts narrated in both in both these revision applications go to show that the matter went on from the Court of the learned trial Judge to the -2- Appellate Court and finally the learned Sessions Judge, Thane by his common Order dated 13.3.2006 dismissed the Criminal Revision Nos.212 of 2005 and 213 of 2005 wherein the impugned orders passed by the Court of learned JMFC declining to condone the delay, whereby the orders granting the condonation of delay were challenged before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has by a reasoned order granted the revision applications and rejected the applications under Section 66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 by which delay was sought to be condoned. In substance the complaints which were filed could not be entertained. Two separate revisions as above have been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.2006 in the two revisions as mentioned aforesaid. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant. In the application Nos.66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 there is a specific averment that the applicant was required to go to his native place to take treatment and he could not move out of this house from April 2005 to August 2005. The two -3- applications were tendered and a case was sought to be made out that as a result of the sickness of the applicant he could not attend the litigations and hence delay should be condoned. The respondent No.1 before this Court placed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the appropriate record to show that the applicant was present in the Thane Court, so as to attend the two cases namely case No.711 of 2005 and 1416 of 2005 between the relevant period namely 22.5.2005 to 5.8.2005. This aspect was considered by the learned Sessions Judge and he did not find favour with the applicant by contending that the applicant had suppressed material facts and had not stated the application in truthful manner and that is how the learned Sessions Judge granted the revisions and rejected the applications bearing Nos.66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005. 4. Before this Court the learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the learned Sessions Judge should have imposed some cost and he should have rejected the revision and at the most the applicant should have been put to terms in terms of cost. The learned advocate further submitted that -4- the applicant remained present in the court at Thane to attend to the two cases because if he would not have remained present before the Court on the relevant date i.e. on 25.7.2005 he would have suffered loss in terms of those two cases. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, the applicant appeared before the said Court at Thane under compulsion and therefore his attendance should not be considered against the applicant. 5. I have considered the submissions. The two applications were made by making bald statement that the applicant was unable to move out of his native place. The applicant did not place the true facts on record as regards his attendance in Thane Court on 25.7.2005. The applicant did not mention in the application as to where is his native place. If sickness of the applicant was so serious, that he could not have move out of the house from 22.5.2005 to 5.8.2005, then how is it that the applicant came to Thane Court on 25.7.2007 and has attended these two complaints on 25.7.2007. As it is he had come to Thane Court to attend these two cases then it was also possible for the applicant -5- to attend to those cases or execute a Power of Attorney in favour of some competent person and instruct him to file the case. 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge took the conduct of the applicant in not stating the true facts against him. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. If the applicant wanted the Court to be sympathetic in his favour, nothing prevented the applicant to state the true facts. If that could have been the line of action and the conduct of the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge could have shown mercy. The applicant proceeded so as to secure success in his matters and suppressed the material facts. But for the respondent No.1 placing before the Court the fact of the applicant appearing before the Court between the relevant period, the Court would have granted the application of the applicant. The cases were cited before the learned Sessions Judge whereby it was sought to be contended that the court should exercise discretion in the matters by passing orders regarding condonation of delay. It could only mean that the discretion is conferred upon the -6- Court and that can be used. The question is whether in the present case the learned Sessions Judge should have exercised the discretion in his favour. In my view the learned Sessions Judge has rightly not exercised the discretion in favour of the applicant. 7. The submission of the learned advocate that the applicant should have been put to some cost and that would have met the ends of justice cannot be accepted, as the Court was required to scrutinize the conduct of the applicant rather than the monetary aspect of the matter. 8. In view of the above, no interference is required in the Order dated 13.3.2006 in the two revisions and this revisions are revised to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER Both the revisions are dismissed in limine. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)