2019 (7) TMI 890 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court affirms denial of delay condonation in Criminal Revision, stresses expeditious trials

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision to deny condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application, emphasizing the need for ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - power to try cases summarily - time limitation - HELD THAT:- As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second Respondent that, cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are required to be tried summarily and trial is required to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of complaint. The legislature intented to expedite the trial of the cases arising out of dishonor of cheque for “insufficiency of funds” in the account, and conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. In the present case the Petitioner belatedly filed the Revision after six months from the date of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As already observed, there was no sufficient cause disclosed before the Sessions Court to condone the delay and therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the Application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay - As already observed the order of issuance of process is dated 23.10.2017 and the petitioner has received the summons on 17.02.2018. Belated attempt of the Petitioner to invoke Revisional jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application.2. Issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Petitioner’s resignation as a Director and its implications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Criminal Revision Application:The Petitioner sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 21st January 2019 of the Sessions Court, Bombay, which rejected the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. The delay was 181 days. The Sessions Court dismissed the application on the grounds that residing in Gujarat was not a sufficient excuse for the delay. The High Court noted that the Petitioner received the summons on 17th February 2018 but filed the Revision application only in July 2018. The Court found no sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing that cases under Section 138 of the NI Act should be tried expeditiously, ideally within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The Court cited Section 143 of the NI Act to underscore the legislative intent for speedy trials in cheque dishonor cases. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s decision, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay.2. Issuance of Process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The Petitioner challenged the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai, dated 23rd October 2017, which issued process against the Petitioner and other Directors of the company under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate erred in issuing the process as the Petitioner had ceased to be a Director of the company from 15th June 2016. The Petitioner contended that he was an Additional Director from 02.09.2013 and had resigned on 15.06.2016, which was documented and filed with the Registrar of Companies. The Petitioner further argued that there was no averment in the complaint stating that he was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the cheques were dishonored. The High Court noted that the Petitioner’s defenses could be considered during the trial and that the Petitioner would have the opportunity to prove his resignation and non-involvement in the business transactions. The Court emphasized that the trial should proceed expeditiously, in line with the legislative intent of the NI Act.3. Petitioner’s Resignation as a Director and Its Implications:The Petitioner submitted that he had resigned as a Director on 15th June 2016, and thus, no cause of action arose against him. The Petitioner provided documents, including Form-DIR 12, to support his claim of resignation. The Petitioner argued that the complaint did not specify his role in the business affairs of the company at the time of the alleged offense. The High Court acknowledged the Petitioner’s contention but emphasized that such matters should be addressed during the trial. The Court noted that the Petitioner would have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding his resignation and non-involvement in the business transactions during the trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate.Conclusion:The High Court rejected the Writ Petition, affirming the Sessions Court’s decision to deny the condonation of delay and upholding the issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious trials in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act and noted that the Petitioner could present his defenses during the trial. The legislative intent for speedy resolution of cheque dishonor cases was reiterated, and the Petitioner was advised to address his contentions on merits before the trial court.