ORDER :

The present petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.32455/2014, in the Court of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), who by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 08-09-2016 passed by the Trial Court was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced accordingly.

Challenging the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge’s Court) in Criminal Appeal No.249/2017, however, with a delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal. The accused as an appellant had also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Act”), seeking condonation of delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal.

2. The Sessions Judge’s Court, by its impugned order dated 04-04-2017 made on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Act, dismissed the said I.A., consequently dismissed the appeal also. Challenging the same, the accused has preferred the present petition.

3. The respondent/complainant is being represented by the learned counsel.

4. Even though the matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

5. After making some submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused concluded his argument stating that, he would not have any objection if the matter is remanded to the Sessions Judge’s Court for its disposal afresh, in accordance with law, after condoning the delay, however, within a time frame of two months from today.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also submits that the complainant would also co-operate in the Sessions Judge’s Court for an early disposal of the appeal.

7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court would go to show that the Court has given a finding that the appellant before it (accused) has not shown sufficient cause for the delay, as such, there was no reason for condoning the delay in preferring the criminal appeal.

8. No doubt, a party filing an application under Section 5 of the Act seeking condonation of delay is required to show sufficient cause for the delay. If the reasons shown are not sufficient, the Court may not condone the delay. It also can be noticed that the condonation of delay is to the discretion of the Court dealing with the matter. Normally, the higher Courts would not interfere in such exercise of discretion by the Courts, unless the Court is convinced that the circumstance warrants the interference in the said order of condonation of delay.

9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the record would go to show that, the accused has stated that after the judgment of conviction was passed by the Trial Court, the complainant had come forward for a settlement in the matter, as such, some negotiations were going on between them for settlement till the second week of February 2017. Since the complainant herein withdrew from her intention to settle the matter, he (accused) had to file the appeal before the Sessions Judge’s Court, which has resulted in causing a delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge’s Court.

10. The Sessions Judge’s Court without giving any reason as to why the said explanation showing the alleged cause for the delay is not acceptable, has, in a single sentence order, stated that the reason given for explaining the delay is not convincing.

In my view, the said reasoning given by the Sessions Judge’s Court is not acceptable for the reason that, it ignored the fact that preferring a first appeal by an accused challenging the judgment of his conviction is a right given to an accused. In the instant case, when the accused has proceeded to exercise such