9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held. 2. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner is, that the respondent obtained personal loan of Rs. 50,000/-, under Account No. MTL 52141329346, on 30.08.2004, agreeing to repay with interest at 15.5%, in 36 monthly installment of Rs. 17,000/-, from him. Towards discharge of the loan and the interest, a cheque bearing No. 294011 payable at Syndicate Bank at Yadgiri, on 30.04.2008, was issued. The said cheque, on presentation, was returned by the Bank, with an endorsement dated 22.09.2008 "dishonoured for insufficient funds". A demand notice to pay the cheque amount was sent on 24.09.2008 and payment was not made. Hence, a private complaint was filed on 21.11.2008, before the Additional JMFC at Yadgiri, under Section 200 Cr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate and the Sessions Judge have committed material error and illegality in not keeping in view the legislative intent in inserting the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act. He submitted that in view of the decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, the decision in Sri T.S. Muralidhar's case, is no more good law. Learned counsel contended that both impugned orders being contrary to the decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, are liable to be quashed and the matter remanded to the JMFC, to decide the application filed under Section 142(b) of the Act. 5. Sri B.C. Jaka, learned advocate, on the other hand, by placing reliance on the decision of Sri T.S. Muralidhar's case, opposed the petition. He submitted that the Magistra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant of special leave, this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction 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. 8. In Pawan Kumar Ralli's case (supra), the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act and the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. A petition was filed by the respondent, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The High Court expressed the view that the complaint was not filed within a period of one month after expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the Court to take cognizance of offence even after expiry of the period of limitation [See MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177]. Only with a view to obviate the difficulties on the part of the Complainant, Parliament inserted the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act in the year 2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay [See Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah (2008) 13 SCC 689]. 21. It is no doubt true that at the time of filing the complaint, the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the complaint when it is within limitation and in case of delay in filing the complaint, the complaint has to come up with the application seeking condonation of delay. But, the peculiar fact of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by limitation, that too a plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation. 24. At the same time, we want to make it very clear that by this observation we are not laying down a legal proposition that without even filing an application seeking condonation of delay at an initial stage, complainant can be given opportunity at any stage of the proceeding. As already discussed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we have come to the irresistible conclusion, to afford an opportunity for the complainant to move an application seeking condonation of delay, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C, the respondent could not have questioned the correctness of the said order in a revision. Therefore, the respondent - accused was well within his right in raising the validity of the said order dated 10.04.2006, as a ground of appeal filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the judgment on merits on 17.05.2006 within about five weeks from the date of condoning the delay. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the respondent accused even to question the said order. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified, in interfering with the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The judgment of the learned Magistrate is perverse, illegal and contrary to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
