[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.19 OF 2009 IN CRI.W.P.NO.2034 OF 2008 Mr.Sarvasiddhi Krishnamohan ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.Priyatosh R.Tiwari Advocate for Mr.A.M.Saraogi Advocate i/b Mr.Hitesh Patel Adv. for applicant Mr.A.R.Patil A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 22, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 22, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 22, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. A complaint came to be lodged against the applicant before the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Kolhapur by the respondent no.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said case is numbered as CC No.87 of 2005. 3. As the accused did not appear before the trial [-2-] Court, proclamation and non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the respondent-accused. As the proclamation and non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the respondent-accused, he preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.2034 of 2008 for setting aside the said proclamation and non-bailable warrant. By order dated 24.11.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition No.2034 of 2008 observing that it is not inclined to interfere as the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of preferring application before the trial Court for setting aside the said order issuing proclamation and the order issuing non-bailable warrant. At that time, the learned advocate for the petitioner made a statement before the Court that the petitioner would appear before the trial Court. In view of the said statement, petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer appropriate proceedings before the trial Court. To enable the petitioner to prefer necessary proceedings before the trial Court, in respect of setting aside the proclamation and the non-bailable warrant, the said proclamation and non-bailable warrant was stayed for a period of six weeks from the date of the order. [-3-] 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that after the order dated 24.11.2008 case to be passed by this Court, mother in law of the applicant expired. Due to this, applicant and his wife were required to go to Mathura. As there was no other close relative, the applicant had to perform all the formalities relating to death of his mother in law. On account of this, the applicant could not appear before the trial Court at Kolhapur and prefer an application for setting aside the proclamation and non-bailable warrant, hence, it is prayed that period mentioned in the order dated 24.11.2008 be extended by a period of four weeks. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant on instructions stated that the accused will appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. He further stated that within four weeks the accused will prefer an application before the trial Court for setting aside the proclamation and non-bailable warrant. 6. In view of the facts, time period mentioned in [-4-] the order dated 24.11.2008 is extended by a period of four weeks from today. 7. If the accused appears before the trial Court within a period of fifteen days from today and prefers necessary application, the said application be disposed of by the trial Court as far as possible within fifteen days thereafter. 8. The Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]