TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Late-filed cheque bounce complaint u/s138-delay condonation u/s142(b) must come before cognizance; proceedings set aside.</h1> Under the proviso to s. 142(b) of the NI Act, a court may take cognizance of a complaint under s. 138 only after the complainant establishes 'sufficient ... Dishonour of cheque - cognizance of offence by learned Magistrate without first condoning the delay in the filing of the complaint - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The power conferred upon the Court to take cognisance of a belated complaint is subject to the complainant first satisfying the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within time. The satisfaction in that regard, resulting in condonation of the delay, must therefore precede the act of taking cognizance. Ordinarily, a proceeding instituted with limitation-linked delay before a Court of law does not actually figure as a regular matter on its file until that delay is condoned. For example, Order XLI Rules 3A and 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, make this position amply clear in the context of belated presentation of civil appeals. Therefore, the approach of the High Court in treating this crucial aspect as a mere interchangeable exercise, i.e., either to first condone the delay or to first take cognisance, is not in keeping with the mandate of the aforestated proviso. We may note that the respondent was herself responsible for this imbroglio as she had made a categorical statement in her complaint that it was filed within time, when it was not. There are no hesitation in holding that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the respondent’s complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, even before the delay of two days in its presentation was condoned. The order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the same is, thus, set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues: Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before condoning a limitation-linked delay in presentation of the complaint under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Analysis: The proviso to Section 142(1)(b) confers power on the Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint only if the complainant satisfies the Court that sufficient cause existed for not making the complaint within the prescribed period. The satisfaction resulting in condonation of delay must precede the act of taking cognizance. A proceeding instituted with a limitation-linked delay ordinarily does not stand as a regular matter on the Court's file until the delay is condoned. Therefore, taking cognizance prior to condonation is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and amounts to a jurisdictional error, notwithstanding that such irregularity may be curable if delay is subsequently condoned; the proper sequence required by the proviso is to first consider and condone the delay and then take cognizance.Conclusion: The taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate before condoning the two-day delay was erroneous; the High Court order refusing to quash that cognizance is set aside and the appeal is allowed, resulting in quashing of the complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013 (converted as CC No. 1439 of 2014).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
