9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments Act, 1881 and did not give the benefit of the provision to the respondent. Therefore, it is observed that the complaint filed by the revisionist barred by limitation. That so far as the nature of transaction is concerned, learned revisional court on the basis of evidence produced by the revisionist observed that cheque was given by the respondent to the revisionist for collateral security not as discharge to any of debt or other liability. Revisional Court after appreciating the material available on record rightly observed that the cheque was given as collateral security to the amount given by the revisionist to the respondents. There is no illegality in observation and conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court. The crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revisionist asking him to repay the amount within fifteen days, but respondent No.2 did not make the payment. 3. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.02.2008 observed that respondent no. 2 has committed offence under section Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, and after considering the material available on record awarded punishment as aforesaid. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and the order of the conviction, the respondent Laxmi Narayan preferred Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2008 before the Additional Session Judge, Banda, which was decided by means of impugned order dated 31.08.2010 and appeal of the respondent no.2 was allowed and judgment and order of sentence was set aside. 5. Against the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since sufficient reason was given by the revisionist in his application. It is also submitted that respondents moved an application to recall the order of delay condonation but it was rightly rejected by the trial court. Learned Revisional court although has observed that complaint filed by the revisionist was time barred, but it rightly held that no benefit of this fact could be given to respondents since he did not prefer any legal remedy against the order of trial court passed on his application to recall order for delay condonation. 9. It is further submitted that revisional court erroneously arrived at a conclusion that cheque was given by the respondent in the form of collateral security while the cheque was given by the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the learned trial court, an application under Section 11-A for condonation of delay was moved on behalf of the revisionist on 06.01.1997. Thereafter, objection-paper No.14-A was filed by the respondents-opposite party on 27.03.1998 to recall the application dated 06.01.1997 with regard to condonation of delay to file a complaint beyond time by the complainant. 15. Learned trial court vide order dated 01.04.1997 rejected the objection of the respondent-opposite party and passed summoning order. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent vehmentally argued that provision of Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was inserted by Act No. 55 of 2002 and it was made applicable w.e.f. 06.02.2003. Only after implementation of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of an offence under Section 138 of the Act was limited to the period of thirty days in terms of the proviso appended thereto Parliament only with a view to obviate the aforementioned difficulties on the part of the complainant inserted proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act in 2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon the court to condone the delay. It is, therefore, a substantive provision and not a procedural one. The matter might have been different if the Magistrate could have exercised its jurisdiction either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,196 or Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1976. The provisions of the said Acts are not applicable. In any event, no such application for condonation of delay was filed. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
