Birendra Prasad Sah vs State Of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2072

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
Birendra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Prerna Singh, Adv., Shantanu Sagar, AOR, Aakash and Priya Ranjan, Advs., for the Appellant; Keshav Mohan, Rishi K. Awasthi, Advs., Santosh Kumar-I, AOR, Jay Savla, Sr. Adv., Arvind Gupta, AOR and Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Adv., for the Respondents

Judgement Key Points

The reason for the delay in this case was due to the appellant's inability to serve the legal notice dated 31 December 2015 despite repeated efforts and queries with the postal department, as no proof of service was provided. Consequently, the appellant issued a second legal notice on 26 February 2016. The appellant explained that the delay in filing the complaint was caused by the difficulty in serving the initial notice and the subsequent need to issue a second notice, which was beyond the initial thirty-day period stipulated for issuing notices under the relevant provisions. The court found that the appellant had provided sufficient cause for the delay, which was considered during the condonation of delay proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 10 May 2018 by which an order taking cognizance of an offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (sic 1881) [1] has been quashed.

4. The facts, briefly stated, are thus:

5. The dispute arises over two cheques drawn on the State Bank of India in the amount of Rs. 36,00,000 and Rs. 13,00,000 which were returned unpaid under a memo issued by the UCO Bank, Begusarai on 20 November 2015. The Appellant received the memo on 4 December 2015. Following this, a legal notice was issued on 31 December 2015 intimating the dishonour of the cheque. According to the Appellant, between 14 February 2016 and 23 February 2016, he made queries with the postal department but no proof of service was provided. Accordingly, on 26 February 2016, a second legal notice was issued. This was replied to by the second Respondent on 2 March 2016. Eventually, a complaint Under Section 138 was instituted on 11 May 2016.

6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai by an order dated 14 July 2016, condoned the delay in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 2072

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTABirendra Prasad Sah – AppellantVersusState Of Bihar – Respondent

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
Birendra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent