P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 208/2015 whereby the Revisional Court has rejected the revision petition of the petitioners affirming the order passed by the JMFC, Bilaspur dated 10.04.2015 in an unregistered complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present petition are that the complainant had initially lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') before the 25th Jt. C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C, Nagpur. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Pupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129 : (AIR 2014 SC 3519) the JMFC, Nagpur vide its order dated 12.12.2014 refused to entertain the complaint case on account of not having its jurisdiction and returned the same to be presented before the appropriate Court. It is alleged that the said order dated 12.12.2014 was obtained by the present petitioner only on 22.12.2014 and subsequently the complaint case before the JMFC, Bilaspur was filed on 23.01.2015 with a delay of 12 days from the date of passing of the order of Nagpur Court.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, for the delay of 12 days that has occurred the complainants had filed an application for condonation of delay supported with a medical certificate showing that the complainant was not well and therefore, he could not file the complaint case within stipulated period. However, the JMFC, Bilaspur vide its order dated 10.04.2015 rejected the same holding that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of 30 days within which the complaint has to be filed after passing of the order of the Nagpur Court.

4. The said order dated 10.04.2015 was also put to challenge in a revision registered as Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2015 before the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the Revisional Court also vide its order dated 23.06.2016 rejected the revision petition affirming the order of the JMFC, Bilaspur dated 10.04.2015 passed by the JMFC, Bilaspur.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the two Courts below have not taken the contention on condonation of delay in its proper perspective, inasmuch as, the two Courts below ought to have taken a more pragmatic view while deciding the application for condonation of delay. She submits that the delay in filing of the application also was not inordinate as the delay caused was that of only 11-12 days. She further submits that in case if the date of receipt of the order dated 12.12.2014 issued by the Nagpur Court is taken into consideration then the complaint case is within limitation as the order dated 12.12.2014 by the Court at Nagpur was received on 22.12.2014 and the complaint case before the JMFC was filed on 23.01.2015. Counsel for the petitioners further referring to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath (supra) submits that the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh decided on 24.11.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2015 discussing the case of Dashrath (supra) reached to the conclusion that in the present scenario, the case of the petitioner would also have been tenable before the Court at Nagpur. Thus, for all these reasons, counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the two impugned orders and for remitting the matter back to the trial Court for considering the case on its merit after registering the same.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, opposes the petition on the ground that it is the requirement of law that once a proceeding was returned to be filed before the appropriate Court, the same has to be done within the period of 30 days from the date of return of the complaint. In the instant case, since the petitioners have not acted promptl