2015 (11) TMI 1860 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the complaint - Jurisdiction of Magistrate to condone the delay in lodging the complaint, after the trial was over and when the case was posted for hearing of arguments on merit - Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case 2014 (8) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT , comes to the aid of the petitioner and negates the contention urged on behalf of the respondent. The said decision of the Apex Court goes to the root of the matter and the decision of this Court in Sri T.S. Muralidhar 2010 (3) TMI 1269 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT cannot stand. The proceedings conducted by the Magistrate, from the stage of taking cognizance being vitiated, also stand quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to condone delay after taking cognizance of the offence.
3. Interpretation of Section 142(b) of the Act regarding limitation period for filing a complaint.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque. The delay in filing the complaint was challenged by the respondent. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay under Section 142(b) of the Act. The lower courts dismissed the petition, citing that the delay should have been addressed before taking cognizance of the offence. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 142(b) to overcome technicalities of limitation periods.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction After Cognizance
The Sessions Judge and the lower court held that condonation of delay should have been sought before taking cognizance of the offence. The courts opined that once cognizance is taken and the trial commences, going back to condone delay is not permissible. The petitioner argued that the courts erred in not considering the legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 142(b) as highlighted in the Pawan Kumar Ralli case.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 142(b)
The petitioner contended that the lower courts misapplied the decision in T.S. Muralidhar's case, which restricted the court's jurisdiction to condone delay after taking cognizance. In contrast, the petitioner relied on the Pawan Kumar Ralli case to assert that the court has the discretion to condone delay even after cognizance is taken, in line with the legislative intent of the proviso to Section 142(b).

The Apex Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court's orders and permitting the complainant to file an application for condonation of delay before the Trial Court. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 142(b) to provide discretion to the court to address delays in filing complaints. The judgment in T.S. Muralidhar's case was deemed no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case. The Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case from the stage prior to taking cognizance, as the proceedings conducted post-cognizance were deemed vitiated.