Delay condonation and cheque security defence: probable rebuttal of statutory presumptions sustained the acquittal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can apply to a delayed leave petition for appeal against acquittal unless expressly excluded, but condonation depends on a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay; here, the explanation for prolonged inaction was found inadequate, so delay was not condoned. On merits in the cheque dishonour matter, the complainant failed to disclose or prove the underlying legally recoverable debt, while the accused raised a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security in a property transaction. That probable defence rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the leave petition deserved condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was warranted on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the leave petition deserved condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed for seeking special leave to appeal from an acquittal is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The question is whether sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The explanation for the substantial delay was found inadequate, since there was no satisfactory explanation for the period of inaction before the instructions were ultimately given and before the petition was prepared and filed.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was warranted on merits.

Analysis: The complainant had not disclosed the particulars of the alleged legally recoverable debt in the complaint or supporting evidence. The accused's version that the cheque had been issued as a security cheque in connection with a property transaction was found probable, especially in view of the admitted payment of the full sale consideration and the circumstances surrounding stop-payment instructions. Once a probable defence was raised, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted. The acquittal was not shown to be perverse or contrary to law.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was declined on merits and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed both on limitation and on merits, and the acquittal was not interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay in seeking leave to appeal from acquittal may be examined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if not expressly excluded, but condonation requires a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay; in a cheque dishonour case, a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security is sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions where the complainant fails to establish the underlying debt.

---