IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2007. Navnit A. Parikh. ..Petitioner. versus A.B.N. Amro Bank N.V. & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. R.V.Pai, i/b. A.A. Kocharekar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Mihir Gheewala, for the Respondent No.2. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 29TH AUGUST,2008. : 29TH AUGUST,2008. : 29TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent. This Petition was adjourned from time to time as the Petitioner had given an offer for settlement. Ultimately, the settlement was not worked out and therefore, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The first Respondent is the Complainant. The first Respondent filed a complaint against the Petitioner alleging the commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. - 2 - Process was issued in the said complaint on 20th December 2006. A Revision Application was filed by the Petitioner on 26th July 2007 for challenging the order issuing process. By Judgment and Order dated 11th October 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the Application for condonation of delay in filing the said Revision Application. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner was that there was sufficient explanation for delay of about two months in filing the Revision Application. Inviting my attention to assertions made in the application for condonation of delay, the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent opposed the Petition by submitting that there was no impediment in the way of the Petitioner filing a Revisoin Application within the time stipulated by the Law of Limitation. He submitted that there is no explanation for delay of about 200 days in the application for condonation of delay and hence, the learned Judge was justified in not condoning the delay. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. - 3 - The order issuing process was passed on 20th December 2006. The Revision Application was filed on 26th July 2007. 5. In the Application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has set out the reasons for delay in filing the Revision Application. The period of limitation stipulated by law is 90 days. After having perused the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the Petitioner. While deciding the Application for condonation of delay, justice oriented and liberal approach is comtemplated. In my view, the delay ought to have been condoned subject to payment of costs. 6. Hence, The Petition must succeed and I pass the following order :- (1) The Judgment and Order dated 11th October 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. (2) Miscellaneous Application No.1046/2007 - 4 - filed in Criminal Revision (Stamp) No.390/2007 is allowed subject to the Petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the first Respondent Bank within a period of eight weeks from today. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. Deposit of the amount of costs in the Sessions Court within the stipulated time will be treated as the sufficient compliance . If compliance is made by the Petitioner, the Sessions Court will register the Revision Application and will dispose of the Revision Application as expeditiously as possible and in the event, within a period of six months from the date on which the Revision Application is registered. (3) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are expressly kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]