BASANTLAL HARIRAM AHUJA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent waives service. The learned A. P. P. waives service for the second respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taken up for hearing forthwith.

(2.) The first respondent is the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A revision Application was filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the first respondent. By the order impugned dated 2nd May, 2006, the learned additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai has rejected the prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the Revision Application and therefore, the Revision Application has been disposed of.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is sufficient explanation for delay in the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant. The learned counsel further submitted that a very technical view is taken by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel for the first respondent has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that there is a gross and unexplained delay on the part of the applicant in filing the Revision Application and there is every justification for the learned judge to reject the Application for condonation of delay.