2017 (3) TMI 1420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e complaints filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Applications filed for delay condonation were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class by observing that no sufficient cause was shown. The Sessions Court has observed that there was sufficient cause as acknowledgment receipt was not returned by the post office to the complainant and there was nothing with the complainant to presume that the period of limitation had started to run. 3. In the private complaints filed under section 138 of the Act against the present applicant, it is contended by the complainant that the statutory notice was sent to the present applicant on 8.1.2013, but no acknowledgment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod starts to run from the date of receipt of statutory notice. Section 142 shows that after expiry of the period of 15 days as mentioned in section 138, the complaint needs to be filed within 30 days. The proviso to section 142(1)(b) provides that if sufficient cause is shown, the Magistrate can condone the delay caused in filing the complaint. The proviso of section 142 (1) (b) runs as under:- "142. Cognizance of offences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (2 of 1974)- (a)** ** ** (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 : Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ys given to the accused under section 138 of the Act, the fact remains that the delay of around 2 months was caused due to aforesaid circumstances. There is the record and the law is amended in view of the aforesaid probabilities and power is given to the Magistrate to condone the delay. In view of the possibility mentioned, the Court is expected to use this provision liberally. This Court holds that the Sessions Court has not committed any error in holding that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. The learned counsel for present applicant placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the two cases in SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters AIR 1999 SC 1609 and Tameeshwar Vaishnav v. Ramvishal Gupta ....