( 1 ) EVEN though these criminal petitions are listed for admission, with consent, they are taken up for final disposal and all the petitions are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these petitions are summarised as follows : petitioners are accused in several cases filed by the respondent. They are employees of a private limited company which is now under liquidation. Proceedings are initiated at the behest of respondent-2 under section 200, Cr. P. C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the act') thereof against the petitioners who were former Managing Directors and Director of the wound-up company, viz. , Victory Glass and Industries Limited, alleging commission of offences under Section 142 of the Act. Suffice it to say that there was a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint and that was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 142 (b) of the Act. The learned Magistrate having considered the application, has allowed the same, condoned the delay and issued process. The petitioners entered appearance and were admitted to bail. They have also filed an application under Section 203, Cr. P. C. for recalling the order dated 17-3-2003 directing issuance of process on the ground that they were not heard before the application filed for condonation of delay was allowed. The learned Magistrate has declined to entertain the same. The petitioners herein questioned the said order before the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions judge in a batch of criminal revision petitions. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the learned Magistrate does not have power under the Cr. P. C. to review his own-order. Hence the present petitions seeking to quash the complaint. 2a. Sri Sreeranga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would vehemently submit that a right has accrued to the petitioners, inasmuch as there was a delay in filing the complaint. Before the delay could be condoned, they ought to have been heard. In the circumstances, he submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) SRI Raju, learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the prayer sought. He submits that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint. There is no justifiable reason as to why the said order of issuing process and the application seeking condonation of delay should be recalled.

( 4 ) I have given rny anxious consideration to the said submissions.

( 5 ) SECTION 138 of the Act would deal with insufficiency of funds in a bank account. Section 142 would deal with taking of cognizance of the offence. Section 142 (b) of the act would specify the time-limit within which a complaint is required to be filed for the offence under Section 138. Under Section 142 (b), a complaint is required to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action has arisen under clause (c)of the proviso to Section 142 of the Act. The proviso was added by Act No. 55/02 with effect from 6-2-2003 enabling the complainant to file the complaint after the prescribed period if he satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause in not making the complaint within the time prescribed. On a reading of the proviso which was inserted by Act No. 55/02, it becomes abundantly clear that a time-barred complaint could also be entertained if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause. Admittedly in the case on hand, there is a delay of 3 days in filing the complaint. The learned Magistrate, before taking cognizance and recording the sworn statement, has straightway condoned the delay in filing the complaint. Incidentally that exercise is done without notice to the petitioners. Undoubtedly a right has accrued in favour of the petitioners when there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The provisions of Section 142 (b) of the Act will have to be read in tandem with Section 142 (a) which starts with a nonobstante clause that 'n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document