2022 (9) TMI 213 - SCH - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside conviction, allows fresh complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ... Dishonor of Cheque - condonation of delay in filing complaint - acquittal of accused - time limitation - Section 142 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, while the notice was received by the appellant on 8 November 2005, the complaint was filed before the period of fifteen days was complete. The complaint could have been filed only after 23 November 2005, but was filed on 22 November 2005. In view of the legal bar which is created by Section 142 of the NI Act, taking of cognizance by the Court was contrary to the law and the complaint was not maintainable before the expiry of the period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt by the appellant. The impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 28 November 2018 shall stand set aside - The respondent would be at liberty to institute a fresh complaint and since the earlier complaint could not be presented within the time prescribed by Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the respondent would be at liberty to seek the benefit of the proviso by satisfying the trial court of sufficient cause for the delay in instituting the complaint. Appeal allowed. Issues involved:Appeal arising from High Court judgment convicting appellant under Section 138 of NI Act, Legal representation for respondent, Interpretation of legal provisions regarding the filing of complaints under NI Act.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the appeal arising from the High Court judgment convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The facts of the case involved a notice sent by the respondent to the appellant regarding a dishonored cheque and subsequent legal proceedings. The Court noted that the complaint was filed before the expiry of the mandatory 15-day period, which is a legal requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act. Referring to a previous three-Judge bench decision, the Court emphasized that filing a complaint before the completion of the 15-day period renders it invalid and not maintainable in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the Court held that taking cognizance of the offence based on such a premature complaint was contrary to the law.Regarding the second issue raised in the appeal, the Court referred to the previous judgment, stating that a fresh complaint could be filed within one month from the date of the decision in the criminal case. The Court clarified that if the original complaint was not filed within the prescribed time under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the delay could be condoned under the proviso to the section. The Court ruled that the respondent could benefit from this provision and file a fresh complaint, seeking the trial court's approval by providing sufficient cause for the delay in instituting the complaint.Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the respondent to file a fresh complaint. The Court granted the respondent the opportunity to seek the benefit of the proviso under Section 142(b) by justifying the delay in filing the complaint. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the complaint within six months if the second complaint is filed within two months from the date of the Supreme Court's order. The appeal was allowed in favor of the respondent based on the above terms, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.