Court upholds decision on delay in Section 138 complaint, citing judicial discretion and legislative intent.

The court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to set aside the JMFC's order in a case involving a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the delay in filing the complaint to be bonafide, referencing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing judicial discretion to condone delays under the Act. The petitioner's challenge was dismissed, affirming the revisional court's decision to condone the delay based on legislative intent and established legal principles.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision and setting aside the JMFC's order.
2. Explanation and condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Applicability of relevant Supreme Court judgments on the issue of delay and limitation under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Order by Additional Sessions Judge
The petitioner challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision No.401/2018 by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur dated 03.12.2018, which allowed the revision preferred by the complainant and set aside the JMFC's order dated 01.08.2018. The JMFC had dismissed the unregistered case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to the complainant's failure to disclose when the application regarding postal acknowledgment was moved before the postal department.

Issue 2: Explanation and Condonation of Delay
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the IPC, alleging that a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonored. The complainant issued a legal demand notice on 28.02.2018 but did not receive the postal acknowledgment until 22.05.2018. The complaint was filed on 30.05.2018. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the delay, but the revisional court found the delay to be bonafide and explained.

Issue 3: Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments
The petitioner argued that the delay of 92 days was not adequately explained and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Econ Antri Limited Vs. Rom Industries Limited, emphasizing that the delay cannot be condoned under the special provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the court noted that the judgment in Econ Antri Limited did not directly address the issue at hand. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pawan Kumar Ralli Vs. Maninder Singh Narula, which emphasized the discretion of courts to condone delays under the proviso to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act to avoid technicalities and ensure cases are decided on their merits.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the revisional court rightly condoned the delay, considering the legislative intent and principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the revisional court.

---