Allowed

Vishwas Suresh Mardolkar v. State of Goa Thr. the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2025CRIR/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of an application to condone a 40-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against a Section 138 NI Act conviction. The court found the reasons (temple festivities, Diwali holidays, mother-in-law's illness) merited condonation, allowed the application, and directed registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 40 days condoned; impugned order quashed; Sessions Court directed to register the appeal; Rs.4,60,000 deposit to be transferred to respondent no.2 and adjusted.

Vishwas Suresh Mardolkar vs State of Goa Thr. the Public… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-GOA:1750

¶2

34 CRIR-33-2025.doc

¶3

Meena

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2025

¶6

VISHWAS SURESH MARDOLKAR .. APPLICANT

¶7

V/S.

¶8

STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate for the Applicant

¶10

Mr. Nilesh Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶12

DATED :- 16^th September, 2025

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter.

¶15

his criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.4 of 2024 , by which an application for condonation of 40 days of delay in iling the criminal appeal against the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the JMFC in Criminal Case No.OA/724/2019/C convicting the applicant for the ofence under Section 138 of the NI Act. he Applicant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 30 days and to pay an amount of compensation of

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

34 CRIR-33-2025.doc

¶18

Rs.23,20,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for four months.

¶19

he reasons stated in the application were that the Applicant was looking after the temple festivities of Mahalasa Temple of Mardol, Ponda, since he was "Sevekari" of the temple, between 24.10.2023 and 20.11.2023. It was also averred by the Applicant that since this period was during the festival of Diwali, in the month of October, 2023, he was unable to contact his lawyer to ile an appeal. hough the reasons stated may not contain details, it appears from the application that one of the reasons cited is that since the limitation was expiring during the Diwali holidays, the Applicant was unable to contact his lawyer, who might not have been available during that period. He has also contended in paragraph 6 of the application that his mother-in-law, who is elderly was also sufering from sickness.

¶20

hough these reasons have been denied, the grounds raised in the reply to oppose the application for condonation of delay were that the Applicant has an Advocate before the trial Court and could have contacted that Advocate. Apart from this, the reply also opposes the application on the ground that the reasons cited that the applicant was busy with temple festivities showed scanty respect for the Court.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

34 CRIR-33-2025.doc

¶23

he application was otherwise supported by an aidavit. he Magistrate had also suspended the sentence imposed on the applicant for a period of 30 days, and granted the Applicant time to ile appeal. Taking these circumstances into consideration, dismissing the application for condonation of delay without really considering the reasons cited in the application would visit the Applicant herein serious consequences, considering that he has been convicted for three months of imprisonment. For these reasons the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. he Application for condonation of delay bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.4 of 2024 is allowed. he delay of 40 days stands condoned. he Registry of the Sessions Court North Goa is directed to register the Criminal Appeal and the same may be allowed in its regular term to the concerned Sessions Court for hearing the appeal on merits.

¶24

As a pre-condition for issuing notice to the Respondent, the Applicant had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,60,000/in the Registry of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025. his amount shall be adjusted by the Sessions Court and considered whilst disposing of the Criminal Appeal. he Registry of this Court is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- deposited on 03.05.2025 directly to the account of the Respondent No.2, details of which are given below:

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

34 CRIR-33-2025.doc

¶27

Name: he Old Goa Multi-purpose Co-Operative Society Bank Name : State Bank of India

¶28

Branch : Old Goa

¶29

Account No: 31864077287

¶30

IFSC Code : SBIN0014375

¶31

A Notiication dated 28.04.2024 has been placed on record by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to substantiate the fact that the name of Respondent No.2 as seen in this Notiication being registered as "he Old Goa Multi-Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd." instead of its old name "he Old Goa Credit Co-Operative Society" which name appears in the cause title of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Magistrate and the Sessions Court in appeal. he Applicant to correct the cause title of the appeal memo before the Sessions Court to incorporate the new name.

¶32

8. Revision Application stands allowed.

¶33

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶34

Page 4 of 4

¶35

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 18/09/2025 15:22:16

Vishwas Suresh Mardolkar v. State of Goa Thr. the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas Suresh Mardolkar v. State of Goa Thr. the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yasin Arafad Naik Rep. by Natural Guardian Shaikh Mohamad Salim and 3 Ors. vs Gosai Moda Nazari and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Ramchandra Pawar vs Jaison Dias and 22 Ors.

Zilu Vishnu Majik and 7 Ors., vs Manoramabai Rauji Rane Sardessai (Expired) and 19 Ors.

Rupesh D. Naik Vs V.P.K. Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd., Rep. by Pandu B. Khandeparkar and Anr.

Shaine Alexius Fernandes Vs the Madgaum Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Rupesh D Naik Vs Vpk Urban Co. Op Cr Society Ltd.