MOHD SABIR Vs. GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mahesh Rai for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Sharma for the respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Perused the impugned judgment and order rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 5 months 20 days.

(3.) The petitioner is an accused in the case pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question, according to the petitioner, was interpolated. He, therefore, filed an application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner. The said application was rejected. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court after a delay of about 5 months and 20 days. The explanation given by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was that the petitioner thought that he could examine the Handwriting Expert though his application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner was rejected. He, therefore, did not file revision application. Later on, he realised that he ought to have filed an application for revision. This argument does not appeal to the reason inasmuch as when the application for examination of cheque by the Document Examiner was rejected, there was no point in examining the document at a later stage. This is only a figment of imagination of the petitioner to create a ground for condonation of delay. The other ground taken by the petitioner was that his father was not well. He was suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes. These are common diseases for a particular age group and no special attention was required. Moreover, it is not established that the petitioner was required to give any special attention to his father which prevented him from taking necessary steps to file revision application. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The reasoned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad cannot be interfered with.