MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Manikumar, J.
Jaya Raghavaa Colour —Petitioner
versus
Euro Impex & Ors. —Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.308 of 2010
Decided on 27.1.2015
Result: Criminal Revision case dismissed.
S. Manikumar, J.—Being aggrieved by the dismissal of CMP No.4378 of 2008 in unnumbered C.C.No.—/2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. CMP No.4378 of 2008 is an application to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the complaint under Sections 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. As per the supporting affidavit to Section 5 Application, filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner is the sole Proprietor of Jaya Raghavaa Colours, Amman Nagar, Kumarapalayam. Out of business transactions, respondents have been alleged to have borrowed Rs.4,86,000/- and cheque bearing No.458581 dated 28.06.2008 drawn on Dena Bank, Madurai Branch, given for discharge of loan amount was returned, as dishonoured. Lawyers notice dated 30.07.2008 was returned on 04.08.2008 as “left”. As the petitioner was bedridden due to viral fever, he could not present the complaint, within the prescribed period. Hence, CMP No.4378 of 2008 has been filed to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the complaint.
3. Respondents have opposed the application. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in another criminal proceedings in C.C.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, the petitioner was appearing during the relevant period, when the complaint ought to have been filed. Therefore, he submitted that the reason assigned in the supporting affidavit for condonation that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever and bedridden, was false.
4. Upon perusal of the records, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, found that the petitioner had appeared before the same Court in connection with C.C.No.131 of 2008 on 19.09.2008 and subsequently on 26.09.2008 and that the reason assigned that he was suffering from viral fever and bedridden, is not supported by any medical certificate. The Court below has held that the reasons adduced by the petitioner, was not substantiated and hence, dismissed the CMP No.4378 of 2008.
5. Placing reliance on R.Gandhimathi and two others Vs. Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch, rep. by its Senior Manager, Vijayaragaran, Dharmapuri, 2007 (4) CTC 524. Mr.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the object of incorporating Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is to protect the interest of the draweee of the cheque, when sufficient cause is shown for condonation. He further submitted that even if there is any technical or curable defect, Courts have always leaned in favour of the drawee of the cheque. Considering the quantum of amount involved, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the cause of illness, has been explained by the complainant, the same ought to have been considered. According to him, the bonafide reason shown by the petitioner, has not been considered in proper perspective, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. For the reasons stated supra, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, by inviting the attention of this Court to the record of proceedings in C.C.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no quarrel over the preposition that if the reason assigned, in not making the complaint within prescribed period, is satisfactory, then the Court below, for condonation is bound to condone the delay. But, if the statement made before the Court below for condonation, is found to be false, then, it does not satisfy the requirement “sufficient cause”. He reiterated that during the relevant period when the complaint ought to have been filed, the petitioner had appeared before the Court below in connection with another Crl. Case viz., C.C.No.131 of 2008. it is also his further contention that the cause of illness was not substantiated. For the reasons stated supra, he prayed for dismissal of the
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.