IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22577 of 2015 M/S WEIZMANN FOREX LTD.

Versus ANISH S. NATH Appearance:

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.203/2013, whereby the criminal revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed on the ground of delay.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of three cheques issued by the non-applicant amounting to Rs.17,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. The Trial Court dismissed the said complaint on account of non-payment of court fees and absence of the complainant.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.203/2013 before the Sessions Court along with an application for condonation of delay. The Revisional Court, after considering the explanation offered by the applicant, dismissed the revision petition holding that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out.

4. The applicant has now approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the said order of the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Revisional Court adopted a hyper- technical approach in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of delay. It is contended that the delay occurred due to the fact that the authorised officer of the company who was looking after the case was engaged in field work and could not contact the counsel in time. It is further submitted that the explanation was supported by an affidavit and was not rebutted by the non-applicant.

5. It is argued that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involves financial liability and the matter ought to have been decided on merits instead of being dismissed on technical grounds. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the applicant be permitted to pursue the complaint case on merits.

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

7. It is evident that the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Trial Court for non-payment of court fees and absence of the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a criminal revision along with an application for condonation of delay. The only explanation offered for the delay was that the authorised officer of the company was engaged in field work and therefore could not take steps in time.

8. The Revisional Court, upon consideration of the explanation, found the same to be insufficient and dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation. The discretion exercised by the Revisional Court in refusing to condone the delay cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. It is well settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant is required to demonstrate sufficient cause explaining the delay satisfactorily. A vague and general explanation without supporting material does not constitute sufficient cause in the eye of law.

9. The present case does not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting interference in a reasoned order passed by the Revisional Court. It is noteworthy that the petitioner had filed the revision petition before the revisional court on 5.4.2013, after which he was given 28 opportunities to file a certified copy of the trial Court in revision, but he failed and revision petition has been filed with a delay of more than four months after the prescribed period of 90 days and no adequate and bonafied reasons has been shown for the delay.

10. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 2