BHARTIBEN ASHOKBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant who has practically submitted her submissions on the line of averments made in the application. The present application has been filed for condoning delay of 610 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magaistrate, N.I. Act Court No.32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1838 of 2010 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .

(2.) THE chronology of events of explaining the delay is mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the application. According to the averments, on the day the impugned order was passed, the applicant was not present before the court. She is a housewife and she is not aware about the intricacies of law. It is averred that the Advocate has orally informed her about the order but she was not given certified copy of the judgment and thereafter her parents -in -law got seriously ill and she had to take care of them and thus she could take the certified copy of the said judgment only on 11.8.2013. Thereafter she sought advice from the Advocate and immediately filed the present appeal. Therefore, she prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Ms K.M. Shah for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is a housewife and she is not aware of law. Her Advocate has orally informed her about the impugned order. The parents -in -law are seriously ill and she had to take care of them. Due to all these family problems, she could not file the appeal within the stipulated time limit and a delay of 610 days occurred which may kindly be condoned as she has a good case on merit.