Judgment : 1. Heard learned Advocate for applicant - original complainant and learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. 2. The applicant-original complainant has filed criminal application no.2392/2007 for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As there was a delay of 478 days in filing the said application, the present application for condonation of delay has been preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length. I have perused the criminal application for condonation of delay. Looking to the reasons stated therein, I am of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for leave to file appeal. The delay has not been properly explained. 4. Thelearned Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in respect of delay. In the first decision, i.e. in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. v/s. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987)2 SCC 107 . The Supreme Court has observed that the Supreme Court has been taking a justifiably liberal approach in respect of delay. On perusal of the facts of the said case, it is seen that there is 4 days delay in the said case, whereas in the present case, there is 478 days delay, hence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Thereafter, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court, in case of N. Balakrishnan v/s. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 . Reliance is placed on the observations in the said decision, wherein it is stated that whenever there is delay, the said delay should be condoned on compensation being given to the opposite side. I have perused the said decision. In fact, the decision shows that whenever delay is condoned, compensation should be given to the opposite party and it does not say that every delay should be condoned by giving compensation to the other side. No doubt, in the said decision, it is observed that length of delay is not relevant. However, it is further observed that acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criteria. In the present case, in my opinion, the delay has not been properly explained. Hence, no case is made out for condonation of delay. 6. No doubt, in the said decision, it is observed that length of delay is not relevant. However, it is further observed that acceptability of explanation for the delay is the sole criteria. In the present case, in my opinion, the delay has not been properly explained. Hence, no case is made out for condonation of delay. 6. Theapplication for condonation of delay is rejected.