TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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 the petitioner on 03.12.2013. Petitioner replied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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. Based on the fresh complaint, NI 09 of 2017 was registe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Revision stands dismissed. The case stands disposed of." 11. Thereafter, the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se 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 2013 arising out of the same incident, accused was acquitted after a full trial of the case and therefore, a second trial is barred under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 also held that the complaint was premature as no cause of action arose on 17.12.2013. Liberty was given to the complainant appellant to decide whether a fresh....