https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764558 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed beyond the statutory period under Section 142(1)(b) was treated as time-barred because no application for condonation of delay was moved before the trial court. The document states that implied condonation cannot be inferred merely from issuance of process; a conscious request for delay to be excused must be made and considered after notice. It also notes that the complainant could have filed the complaint personally under Section 200 CrPC and could not shift the entire blame to counsel. Applying the limited scope of interference in appeal against acquittal, the trial court's view was held to be plausible and the dismissal was upheld. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764558 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed beyond the statutory period under Section 142(1)(b) was treated as time-barred because no application for condonation of delay was moved before the trial court. The document states that implied condonation cannot be inferred merely from issuance of process; a conscious request for delay to be excused must be made and considered after notice. It also notes that the complainant could have filed the complaint personally under Section 200 CrPC and could not shift the entire blame to counsel. Applying the limited scope of interference in appeal against acquittal, the trial court's view was held to be plausible and the dismissal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764558