TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application seeking condonation of delay of four months and twelve days in filing the appeal against Judgment and order of conviction dated 10.11.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-Da-Gama in Criminal Case no. 1304/OA/NIA/2006/B has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the revision application are as under:- Respondent no. 1 filed above criminal case against the applicant herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881( the Act for short). Respondent no. 1 claimed that applicant/accused had issued a cheque for ₹ 4,80,000/-dated 30.11.2005 in his favour which was dishonoured. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-Da-Gama b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the application for compounding before the Supreme Court was filed alongwith the application. 5. Against order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge rejecting condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the applicant filed present revision application. Alongwith revision application the applicant placed original certificate dated 25.3.2011 issued by doctor Shrisha Kumar, a doctor from Kulur, Manglore certifying that applicant was under his treatment for injuries to his right hand and hypertension from 22.11.2010 and he was advised rest for a period of five months from 22.11.2010. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant was suspended upon execution of bail bond of ₹ 20,000/-with one suret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the applicant expressed his inability to argue the matter on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, matter was adjourned subject to payment of costs. On 25.7.2011, Advocate Mr. Shivan Desai, appeared for the applicant and sought time and accordingly matter was taken up on 26.7.2011. 7. Mr. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that learned Assistant Sessions Judge, has erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and learned Judge ought to have accepted the cause shown by the applicant which was not denied by respondent no. 1 herein by filing an affidavit. According to learned advocate, delay was not intentional and serious prejudice would be caused to the applicant if the delay is not condone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant does not entitle him to any discretionary relief from this Court. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the applicant has suppressed the fact in the application seeking condonation of delay that he was in jail from 23.6.2010 to 13.12.2010 and therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence from this Court. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 11. In the present case, the applicant initially filed certificate dated 25.3.2011 issued by doctor Shrisha Kumar, Kulur Mangalore stating that the applicant was under his treatment from 22.11.2010 and he was advised rest for five months. It was only after the respondent no. 1 pointed out that the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant to justify his absence in the Court on 7.7.2011. 12. From what is stated above, it is clear that the applicant has not come to this Court with clean hands and has relied upon medical certificates which are fabricated. 13. Moreover, in the application dated 28.4.2011 filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay, he has not stated that he was in jail from 23.6.2010 to 13.12.2010 which fact ought to have been pleaded by the applicant to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, in the application, it has not been stated as to when he met with an accident and as to how long he was hospitalised. Another reason given by the applicant that his advocate informed him that there was no need to file appeal since other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of fact in the Court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure foundation of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 15. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
