2021 (12) TMI 277 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - expiry of statutory period - acquittal of the accused mainly on the grounds that cognizance of the offence under Section 138 NI Act was taken before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days commencing from the date of receipt of the demand notice - condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 142 NI Act - HELD THAT - In the case of YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH VERSUS SAVITRI PANDEY ANR. 2014 (9) TMI 1129 - SUPREME COURT , appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against respondent No. 01 before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days and the Magistrate took cognizance of offence and issued summons to the accused who assailed the order in a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court. The High Court held that since the complaint was filed within 15 days of the service of the demand notice, the same was premature and the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance was quashed against which the appellant came to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, for same cause of action complainant private respondent filed a complainant under Section 138 NI Act in the court of the CJM, South Tripura, Belonia which was registered as CR(NI)23 of 2013 in which evidence was taken and learned CJM by his judgment and order dated 11.04.2016 found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of the said charge on various grounds - It is thus clear that accused was once tried in NI 23 of 2013 for the same cause of action in which evidence was taken and after full trial he was acquitted because the complainant could not establish the charge against him. Order of his acquittal still remains in force. In these circumstances, learned trial court committed error by entertaining a fresh complainant for the same cause of action between the same parties. The Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with a fresh complaint under Section 138 NI Act after acquitting the accused in a previous case for the same cause of action?
2. Whether the condonation of delay and subsequent cognizance of offence under Section 138 NI Act without hearing the accused was justified?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint under Section 138 NI Act where the accused had issued cheques that were dishonored. The accused was acquitted in a previous trial due to premature filing of the complaint within 15 days of the demand notice. The complainant filed a fresh complaint, leading to the current dispute. The High Court held that the trial court erred in entertaining a fresh complaint for the same cause of action between the same parties after the accused had been acquitted in the previous case. The court emphasized that the order of acquittal from the first trial still remained valid, making the second trial unjustifiable.

2. The second issue revolved around the condonation of delay and taking cognizance of the offence without providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments, including the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sabitri Pandey, to determine the validity of the trial court's actions. The court found that the condonation of delay and subsequent cognizance without hearing the accused were not justified, especially considering the previous acquittal of the accused in a full trial. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, emphasizing the error in proceeding with the fresh complaint without proper legal basis.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of legal procedures, consistency in trial outcomes, and the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings. The decision provided clarity on the limitations of filing fresh complaints after acquittals and the necessity of affording the accused a fair hearing before taking cognizance of offences.