The court emphasized the legislative intent of Section 142(1)(b) to allow for the condonation of delays in filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, prioritizing equitable justice by allowing further opportunities for the complainant.

ORDER :

M G UMA, J.

The revision petitioner being the complainant in C.C.No.5720/2016 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalabuargi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), is impugning the judgment dated 03.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), allowing the appeal filed by the accused and setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the compliant and acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has filed the private complaint before the Trial Court contending that, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same. Towards repayment of the loan, the accused had issued a cheque- Ex.P1 for Rs.3,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured, as there was insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Legal notice was issued by the complainant to the accused informing him about dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. But, the legal notice was returned to the complainant as ‘addressee not found’. It is the contention of the complainant that, the postal envelope addressed to the accused was found open and therefore, it is contended that, the accused after opening the envelope and knowing the contents of the notice had managed to send back the envelope as addressee not found. Later, the private complaint came to be filed on 04.04.2016, requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence.

3. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence, registered the criminal case and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 in support of his contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence.

4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.48/2021. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, found that there was delay in filing the complaint and therefore, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.

5. Heard Sri Yashas S. Dikshit, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitting the accused suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

7. The complainant has filed the private complaint before the Trial Court contending that, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same. Towards repay