RAVINDRA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally. I have heard Shri V.B. Anjanwatikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.R. Kale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and Shri P.S. Kosti, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. He filed proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the negotiable instrument given on behalf of the present petitioner for Rs. 6,756/- was not honoured by his banker. The said proceedings were registered as Criminal Case No. 2987 of 2008. The learned Magistrate on 17.7.2010 passed an order of conviction, by which the present petitioner was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also directed to pay amount of Rs. 7,000/- by way of compensation and if the said compensation is not paid he was directed to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(3.) The present petitioner, being dissatisfied by the said order, filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge at Dhule, however, the said appeal was barred by limitation, and therefore, an application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2011 was filed for condonation of delay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 13.11.2014 was pleased to reject the said application for condonation of delay and thereby refused to register the Criminal Appeal. Being dissatisfied by the said order, dated 13.11.2014, the present Writ Petition is filed.