FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.487 OF 2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court s orders : ’ or directions and Registrar s’ : Court s or Judge s orders ’ ’ orders : _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.Anand Patil for applicant Mr.D.R.More, APP CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2010. PC :­ 1. Heard. 2. This revision application impugns an order passed by the lower appellate court refusing condonation of delay in filing an appeal to challenge the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court by an order dated 14th October 2008, convicted the applicant of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed him to suffer simple imprisonment of one month and to pay compensation of Rs.17,000/­ to the original complainant. This order has been pronounced on 14th October 2008. From the record itself, it is apparent that the appeal was presented on 18th November 2008 and registered on 27th November 2008. Yet, on an erroneous presumption and by sheer inadvertence an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal has been preferred, which appeal having been dismissed, the present revision. 3. Notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.1 original complainant and – the office report shows that it is duly served. None has appeared for respondent No.1, though duly served. 4. The undisputed factual position noted in the lower appellate court s order itself is enough ’ to conclude that there was no need for applying for condonation of delay. The application itself was made on the wrong assumption noticed above. The appeal is within limitation considering the date of the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. The valuable right of appeal of the applicant is thus lost by technicalities. The same ought not to defeat justice. In such circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside. Criminal appeal is restored to the file of the lower appellate court for being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both sides. Till the disposal of the appeal, the order passed on the Criminal Application No.433 of 2009 dated 11th August 2009 to continue. Revision Application allowed in these terms. (JUDGE)