9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e complaint himself before the Court as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and he did not require the assistance of the counsel for presenting the complaint. Hence, the appellant cannot shift the entire blame on the counsel. He could have filed an application for condonation of delay, giving reasons, but he failed to do so, and it is not permissible for the Court to condone the delay when no such prayer was made before the learned Trial Court. In Praveen Qtarmal Parmar [ 2023 (8) TMI 462 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the Bombay High Court held that the delay was impliedly condoned. It also held that the Court had not given an opportunity to pray for the condonation of delay. There cannot be any implied condonation, as noticed above. It is difficult to see how the Court can grant an opportunity for condonation of delay if no such prayer is made. Conclusion - The complaint was barred by limitation, no implied condonation occurred, the complainant bore responsibility for the delay. The learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while deciding the complaint and no interference is required with it while deciding an appeal against acquittal. Appeal dismissed. - Hon ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplaint was to be filed within 30 days after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was deemed to be served on 27.1.2014. The complaint was filed on 10.4.2014, which was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed; therefore, the complaint was dismissed. 8.Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the complainant filed the present appeal asserting that the complaint was to be filed on or before 9.3.2014. It was drafted on 7.3.2014. Learned counsel erred in not filing the complaint within limitation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 9.I have heard Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 10.Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the Court had issued a notice and is deemed to have condoned the delay. The complaint was prepared on 7.3.2014 but was filed belatedly by the learned counsel. The complainant should not be faulted for the error of the learned counsel. Therefore, he prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity. 27. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The two-views theory has been judicially recognised by the courts, and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results in two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of the innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 586] and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395] ). 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P. [Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 51: AIR 1955 SC 807]). 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala [Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320]). 14.The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 15.It was submitted that the Court had issued a process which amounts to the implied condonation of delay. This submission is not acceptable. It was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application or declining the same. 7. The observation made in Wade's Administrative Law (10th Edition) is useful. Willes, J. said: I am of the same opinion. I apprehend that a Tribunal which is by Law invested with power to affect the property of one of Her Majesty's subjects is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds and that the rule is of universal application and founded on the plainest principles of justice. Now, is the board, in the present case, such a Tribunal? I apprehend it clearly is Byles, J. Said: It seems to me that the board are wrong whether they acted judicially or ministerially. I conceive they acted judicially because they had to determine the offence, and they had to apportion the punishment as well as the remedy. That being so, a long course of decisions, beginning with Dr Bentley's Case and ending with some very recent Cases, establish that although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the Justice of the Common Law will supply the omission of the Legislature. 8. The above quotations show clearly how the courts are justified in their interventions. They held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within one month from the date of which the cause of action has arisen as per clause (c) of the proviso to section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. The proviso under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of section 142 was added by Act No. 55/2 with effect from 6-2-2013, enabling the complainant to file the complaint after the prescribed period of limitation if he satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause in not making the complaint within time prescribed. On a bare reading of the said proviso, it becomes abundantly clear that a time-barred complaint could also be entertained if the complainant satisfies the trial Court that he had a cause. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the learned JMFC has registered the complaint without deciding the condonation application. Under the circumstances, a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner to defend his case on the ground of delay. The provisions of section 142(1)(b), Negotiable Instruments Act will have to be read in tandem with section 142(1)(a), Negotiable Instruments Act which starts with a non-obstante clause that no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act except upon a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Court as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and he did not require the assistance of the counsel for presenting the complaint. Hence, the appellant cannot shift the entire blame on the counsel. He could have filed an application for condonation of delay, giving reasons, but he failed to do so, and it is not permissible for the Court to condone the delay when no such prayer was made before the learned Trial Court. 19.In Praveen Qtarmal Parmar (supra), the Bombay High Court held that the delay was impliedly condoned. It also held that the Court had not given an opportunity to pray for the condonation of delay. There cannot be any implied condonation, as noticed above. It is difficult to see how the Court can grant an opportunity for condonation of delay if no such prayer is made. It is bound to dismiss the complaint if a person is barred by limitation and no sufficient reason has been shown for not filing the complaint within limitation; therefore, it is difficult to follow the cited judgment. 20.No other point was urged. 21.Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while deciding the complaint and no interference is required with it while deciding an appeal agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
