TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and the consequential order were vitiated for want of cognizance within the statutory period and without prior condonation of delay under the cheque dishonour framework. (ii) Whether, after the 2002 amendment, the complainant was entitled to an opportunity to satisfy the court on sufficient cause for delay before cognizance was taken.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint and the consequential order were vitiated for want of cognizance within the statutory period and without prior condonation of delay under the cheque dishonour framework.
Analysis: The complaint was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period, but the governing provision had already been amended to confer power on the court to take cognizance if the complainant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for not filing within time. The earlier authorities relied upon for the petitioner were treated as distinguishable because they arose in a different statutory setting. Issuance of process could not by itself substitute the statutory requirement of deciding limitation and condonation, but the proceedings were not liable to be terminated outright on that ground alone.
Conclusion: The objection to the proceedings on limitation was not accepted as a ground for outright quashing at that stage.
Issue (ii): Whether, after the 2002 amendment, the complainant was entitled to an opportunity to satisfy the court on sufficient cause for delay before cognizance was taken.
Analysis: The amended scheme permits cognizance of a delayed complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The proper course was therefore to let the complainant place the explanation before the trial court, which must then decide the question of cognizance in accordance with the statutory requirements. The revisional court accordingly interfered with the impugned order and restored the matter to the trial court for consideration of delay and cognizance in the manner contemplated by the Act.
Conclusion: The complainant was to be afforded an opportunity to justify the delay, and the trial court was directed to decide cognizance afresh according to law.
Final Conclusion: The revisional application succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of limitation and cognizance under the amended cheque dishonour provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution filed beyond the prescribed period, the court must decide the question of limitation in light of the statutory proviso permitting condonation on sufficient cause, and cognizance cannot rest merely on issuance of process without such consideration.
TaxTMI 
