The importance of satisfactorily explaining and justifying delays in legal proceedings, and considering lack of bona fides as a relevant and significant fact.

The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Crl.M.P.No.1421 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 122 days in filing the Criminal Revision in SR.5081 of 2016.

2. According to the Petitioner/Accused, the Respondent/Complainant had filed a Petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by using forged documents and further, the Respondent/Complainant had failed to explain the different signatures in Ex.P1/Pro-note etc.

3. The stand of the Petitioner/Accused is that he filed a Petition in Crl.Mp.No.1285 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking an expert opinion. The trial Court had ultimately dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.1285 of 2015 in C.C.No.151 of 2014 on 04.07.2015 assigning reasons thereto.

4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submits that the Petitioner/Accused was suffering from jaundice problem and also because of the family problem, he could not contact his Learned counsel and obtain a copy of the order passed in the subject matter in issue. Later, the Petitioner/Accused's learned counsel gave the certified copy of the order in question during the first week of January 2016. Immediately, the Petitioner/Accused had arranged money and handed over the case bundle to the Learned counsel at High Court, Madras. Thereafter, the counsel for the Petitioner/Accused has filed the Revision Petition before this Court on 02.02.2016 and in this regard, there had occasioned a delay of 122 days in preferring the present Criminal Revision which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that the Respondent/Complainant had filed C.C.No.151 of 2014 against the Petitioner/Accused before the Fast Track Court, Alandur on 28.04.2014 and the Petitioner/Accused appeared before the Court on 31.07.2014 and thereafter, continuously projected petitions under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Court and only his Learned counsel used to appear before the Court for filing petition under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant projects an argument that in the main case in C.C.No.151 of 2014 on the file of the trial Court, the Respondent/Complainant filed the above affidavit on 25.09.2014 and the matter was posted for cross examination on the side of the Petitioner/Accused and adjourned to the following dates viz., 07.10.2014, 20.10.2014, 13.11.2014, 01.12.2014, 22.12.2014, 06.01.2015, 22.01.2015, 04.02.2015, 10.02.2015, 16.02.2015, 26.02.2015, 04.03.2015, 11.03.2015, 16.03.2015, 25.03.2015, 08.04.2015 & 13.04.2015. Moreover, the matter was posted finally for cross examination of the Respondent/Complainant on 20.04.2015. At that time only, the Petitioner/Accused had constrained to file the Crl.M.P.No.1285 of 2015 before the trial Court (under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

7. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant is that the Petitioner/Accused had admitted the execution of the cheque in the subject matter in issue and its dishonour and also the acknowledgment of statutory notice and failed to send a reply notice and only for adopting a dilatory tactics, the Petitioner/Accused had chosen to file the present Crl. M.P.No.1421 of 2016 before this Court. Furthermore, on 06.10.2015, the Petitioner/Accused again with mala-fide intention projected two petitions viz., one under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code and another under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was adjourned to 12.10.2015, 15.10.2015, 26.10.2015, 02.11.2015 & 18.11.2015. Indeed on 18.11.2015, both the petitions/ applications were dismissed and the main case was adjourned to 02.03.2016.

8. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that only in