High Court affirms Appellate Court's remand decision, instructs Trial Court on delay application under Negotiable Instruments Act.

The High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Court to remand the case to the Trial Court for consideration of the delay application. Emphasizing that the delay issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the High Court ruled that the Trial Court should have the discretion to decide on condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition was dismissed, with the Trial Court instructed to resolve the matter within one year.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the Appellate Court erred in remanding the case to the Trial Court for considering the delay.
3. Whether the Appellate Court has the power to remand the case for filing an application for condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.
The factual matrix reveals that the complainant, running an industry under M/s. Nandini Modulars, received four cheques from the accused as security for a loan amounting to Rs. 13,58,921/-. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was issued on 03.02.2017, but the accused did not comply, leading to the filing of a complaint. The Trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The Appellate Court noted a delay of seven days in filing the complaint and remanded the case to the Trial Court to consider an application for condonation of delay, which was not initially filed.

Issue 2: Whether the Appellate Court erred in remanding the case to the Trial Court for considering the delay.
The petitioners argued that the Appellate Court wrongly relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, which pertains to specific facts and is not a general proposition of law. They contended that the Appellate Court has no power under the Cr.P.C to remand the case for filing a condonation of delay application. The Appellate Court, however, observed that the issue of delay was raised for the first time before it and not before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, relying on the Supreme Court judgment, remanded the case to the Trial Court to consider the delay application first.

Issue 3: Whether the Appellate Court has the power to remand the case for filing an application for condonation of delay.
The petitioners cited various judgments to support their argument that the Appellate Court cannot remand the case for filing a condonation of delay application. They emphasized that the delay application should have been filed along with the complaint. The respondent argued that the Appellate Court correctly remanded the case, as the issue of delay was raised for the first time in the appeal. The Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court should have the discretion to condone the delay, not the Appellate Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case was cited to support this view, stating that the Trial Court should decide the application for condonation of delay.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Appellate Court did not err in remanding the case to the Trial Court to consider the delay application. The High Court emphasized that the issue of delay was raised for the first time in the appeal, and the Trial Court should have the opportunity to exercise its discretion under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within one year.

Order:
The petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within one year from today.

---