2010 (3) TMI 1269 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint was barred by time as provided by Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
2. Whether the statutory notice was properly addressed and served.
3. Whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of debt or liability.
4. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the complaint at the fag end of the trial.

Summary:

Issue 1: Complaint Barred by Time
The appellant filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 142 of the N.I. Act, alleging that the respondent issued a cheque which was dishonored due to "funds insufficient." The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and convicted the respondent. However, the Fast Track Court-II set aside the conviction, holding that the complaint was barred by time as it was filed beyond the period allowed under Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act. The court noted that the complaint was filed on 9.2.2004, while the cause of action arose on 2.1.2004, thus exceeding the one-month limitation period. The Magistrate's subsequent condonation of delay on 10.4.2006 was deemed invalid as it was not exercised at the time of taking cognizance.

Issue 2: Proper Service of Notice
The respondent contended that the statutory notice was not properly addressed, resulting in no service of notice. The Fast Track Court-II found that the notice was not served at the correct address, supporting the respondent's claim. The appellate court observed that the complainant's reliance on postal endorsements did not establish proper service of notice.

Issue 3: Cheque Issued for Discharge of Debt
The respondent denied borrowing Rs. 1,00,000 and claimed that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque, which was misused. The Fast Track Court-II accepted the respondent's defense, noting that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction to Condon Delay
The appellate court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to condone the delay at the fag end of the trial. The court emphasized that the delay must be condoned before taking cognizance of the offence, as per the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act. The failure to do so rendered the entire trial vitiated.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Fast Track Court-II's judgment that acquitted the accused. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the complaint was time-barred and the statutory notice was not properly served. The Magistrate's belated condonation of delay was deemed without jurisdiction, invalidating the entire trial process.