ORDER : The present petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.32455/2014, in the Court of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), who by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 08-09-2016 passed by the Trial Court was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced accordingly. Challenging the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Sessions Judge’s Court) in Criminal Appeal No.249/2017, however, with a delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal. The accused as an appellant had also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Act”), seeking condonation of delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal. 2. The Sessions Judge’s Court, by its impugned order dated 04-04-2017 made on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Act, dismissed the said I.A., consequently dismissed the appeal also. Challenging the same, the accused has preferred the present petition. 3. The respondent/complainant is being represented by the learned counsel. 4. Even though the matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 5. After making some submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused concluded his argument stating that, he would not have any objection if the matter is remanded to the Sessions Judge’s Court for its disposal afresh, in accordance with law, after condoning the delay, however, within a time frame of two months from today. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also submits that the complainant would also co-operate in the Sessions Judge’s Court for an early disposal of the appeal. 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court would go to show that the Court has given a finding that the appellant before it (accused) has not shown sufficient cause for the delay, as such, there was no reason for condoning the delay in preferring the criminal appeal. 8. No doubt, a party filing an application under Section 5 of the Act seeking condonation of delay is required to show sufficient cause for the delay. 8. No doubt, a party filing an application under Section 5 of the Act seeking condonation of delay is required to show sufficient cause for the delay. If the reasons shown are not sufficient, the Court may not condone the delay. It also can be noticed that the condonation of delay is to the discretion of the Court dealing with the matter. Normally, the higher Courts would not interfere in such exercise of discretion by the Courts, unless the Court is convinced that the circumstance warrants the interference in the said order of condonation of delay. 9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the record would go to show that, the accused has stated that after the judgment of conviction was passed by the Trial Court, the complainant had come forward for a settlement in the matter, as such, some negotiations were going on between them for settlement till the second week of February 2017. Since the complainant herein withdrew from her intention to settle the matter, he (accused) had to file the appeal before the Sessions Judge’s Court, which has resulted in causing a delay of 137 days in preferring the criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge’s Court. 10. The Sessions Judge’s Court without giving any reason as to why the said explanation showing the alleged cause for the delay is not acceptable, has, in a single sentence order, stated that the reason given for explaining the delay is not convincing. In my view, the said reasoning given by the Sessions Judge’s Court is not acceptable for the reason that, it ignored the fact that preferring a first appeal by an accused challenging the judgment of his conviction is a right given to an accused. In the instant case, when the accused has proceeded to exercise such a right in the first appellate Court, though some delay has been caused and the same has been explained by the accused, the Sessions Judge’s Court ought to have considered it in its proper perspective. Further, no prejudice would have been caused to the interest of the complainant had the delay been condoned and accused had been given an opportunity to challenge the judgment of his conviction. Further, no prejudice would have been caused to the interest of the complainant had the delay been condoned and accused had been given an opportunity to challenge the judgment of his conviction. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court, rejecting the I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be set aside and the said I.A.No.1 deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the criminal appeal No.249/2017 which came to be dismissed as barred by limitation also deserves to be restored on the file. Simultaneously, the time taken in the process also to be considered, as such, a direction for the early disposal of the criminal appeal by the Sessions Judge’s Court is also required to be given in the matter. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : [i] The Criminal Revision Petitio n is allowed in part; [ii] The impugned order dated 04-04-2017 passed by the learned 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.249/2017, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, is set aside; The interlocutory application -I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the appellant (petitioner herein) before the learned Session’s Judge’s Court, in Criminal Appeal No.249/2017, stands allowed. Delay of 137 days in filing the Criminal Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge’s Court is condoned; Consequently, the learned 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed to dispose of the said Criminal Appeal, in accordance with law, at the earliest, but not later than six months from today; [iii] In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, both parties are directed to appear before the learned 58th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, without anticipating any fresh notice or summons from it on 12-07-2021 at 11:00 a.m. Registry to transmit the Trial Court and Sessions Court’s records to the learned Sessions Judge’s Court immediately, along with a copy of this order. However, the Sessions Judge’s Court is directed to transmit the Trial Court records to the concerned Trial Court immediately after disposal of the criminal appeal by it.