The New Shoolini Cooperative NATC Society Ltd. Solan Vs.Salip Kumar Shukla Cr. MP(M) No. 2927 of 2024 11.11.2025 Present: Mr. Parikshit Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondent. Applicant Shoolini Cooperative NATC Society Ltd. Solan has preferred the accompanying appeal, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 1.12.2023, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Crl. Complaint No. 698 of 2018, titled as, ‘The New Shoolini Co-operative NATC Society versus Dalip Kumar Shukla’. 2. By way of judgment dated 1.12.2023, the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant/applicant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’), against respondent Dalip Kumar Shukla. 3. Since, the appeal has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application has been filed for condonation of delay. 4. Delay, as per the the report of the Registry is 332 days, which has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground that the applicant, who has been authorized to pursue the matter, remained under bonafide belief that as and when, his presence will be required, he will be informed by his counsel, who was representing him, before the learned trial Court. 5. Due to the said fact, the applicant was not aware about the decision of the case. 6. It is further case of the applicant that in the month of October, 2024, when the employee of the applicant-Society Ramesh Kumar had gone to District Court Complex to inquire about the fate of the case, then, it was disclosed by his counsel that the complaint has already been dismissed. 7. It is the further case of the applicant that Ramesh Kumar, on account of some bonafide mistake, has not informed the authorities to initiate the process to file the appeal, before this Court. 8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer to condone the delay in filing the Cr. Appeal has been made. 9. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by non-applicant Dalip Kumar, on the ground that applicant has miserably failed to make out a case, for condonation of delay. An attempt has also been made in the reply to demonstrate that no authority was given to Ramesh Kumar, as alleged. 10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11. Heard. 12. Reply filed by the non-applicant is totally silent about the facts as to whether the applicant or its authorized representative were negligent in pursuing the matter. The reply is also silent about the object, which, the applicant is going to achieve, in not filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had it not been prevented to do so by the reasons, mentioned in the application. 13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. M.P.ST. No. 11435 of 2025 14. By way of the present application, the applicant, who is complainant, in this case, has sought the indulgence of this Court to grant leave to appeal. 15. In view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1868- 1870 of 2025, titled as Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran & Others, there is no legal requirement, for the applicant, to seek special leave to appeal. The application is disposed of accordingly. Cr. Appeal No. 16. Be registered. 17. Admit. 18. Respondent, through his counsel, is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within four weeks, by giving a solemn undertaking to surrender before this Court or before the learned trial Court, in case of ultimate acceptance of the appeal, and that he shall not leave the country, without the prior permission of the trial Court. (Virender Singh) Judge November 11, 2025 (kalpana)