JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant has filed this leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.5.2006 passed by the A.C.J.M. No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby a complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed in default and accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cognizance of which was taken by the Trial Court and the accused-respondent was summoned. Though, the substance of accusation was read-over to him, which he denied. Thereafter, almost 15 adjournments were taken by the appellant for submitting his evidence and when no one appeared on 18.5.2006, the complaint was dismissed, against which order, this leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order. 5. The appeal was filed after delay of 385-days, for which no explanation is coming forth. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. K.G. Traders v. M/s. Devi Kripa Trading, S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 340 of 2006, decided on 26.7.2007 = 2008 (2) NIJ 352 (Raj). 7. When there is no satisfactory explanation about the delay, the delay cannot be condoned. 8. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, no findings of any satisfactory explanation can be given, and the delay of 385 days can not be condoned. 9. In the result, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be rejected. Hence, the same is rejected. 10. As a result of rejection of application for condonation of delay, this leave to appeal stands dismissed as having barred by limitation. *******