TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.2018 of the accused petitioner which was filed under Section 300 Cr.P.C. 2. The factual background of the case is as under: Respondent herein filed a complaint before the CJM, South Tripura, Belonia under Section 138 NI Act alleging that petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- from him. In order to pay back the loan, petitioner issued 03 cheques of different amounts on 04.11.2013 drawn on Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Belonia branch. Respondent presented the cheque for encashment in UBI, Belonia branch where he had an account. But the cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. 3. Respondent issued statutory demand notice to the petitioner by registered post which was received by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Belonia in South Tripura. The appeal was registered as Crl. Appl. No. 17 of 2016 and the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground that such appeal was not sustainable in view of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 7. After the appeal of the complainant was so dismissed, he filed a fresh petition in the court of the CJM under Section 138 NI Act. Since such fresh complaint was filed beyond statutory period of 01 month from the date on which cause of action arose, complainant respondent by filing a separate petition sought for condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 142 NI Act. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial mind on the complaint and shall decide whether he should proceed further or not and on this stage, if Magistrate proceed further, it can be said that he has taken cognizance of the case. Hence, the language of the proviso to clause(b) of section 142 N.I. Act makes it apparent that if the complainant can satisfy a court for not preferring complaint within the prescribed period, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the complaint by condoning the delay. Hence, it cannot be said as argued by learned counsel Mr. S. Majumder that without hearing the accused, learned trial court took cognizance and thereby committed a mistake. Thus, I find no force behind such submission of learned counsel Mr. Majumder. Hence, the Crl. Revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below; (v) After hearing set aside the orders dated 09.03.2017 and 25.03.2019 passed by the learned CJM, Belonia in case No. NI-09 of 2017, dismiss the second complaint dated 09.03.2017 and absolve the petitioner from liability of the case.; AND (vi) Pass any other order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper" 13. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschowdhury learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the private respondent along with Mr. P. Majumder, learned advocate. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State respondent. 14. It is contended by Mr. Daschowdhury, learned counsel of the petitioner that in CR23(NI) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..........As we have already held that a complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the Court of sufficient cause. Question (ii) is answered accordingly." 16. Counsel submits that the complainant challenged the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 wherein the learned Sessions Judge a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of the CJM, South Tripura, Belonia which was registered as CR(NI)23 of 2013 in which evidence was taken and learned CJM by his judgment and order dated 11.04.2016 found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him of the said charge on various grounds. One of those grounds is that the complaint was premature as it was filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. Another ground of his acquittal was that accused established the fact that after issuing the impugned cheques, he paid back the entire loan to the complaint. As discussed, the complainant challenged the said judgment before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal 17 of 2016. Leaned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 dismissed the....