IMPORTANT POINT
Discretion is given to court to take cognizance of complaint even after prescribed period if complainant satisfies court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within such period.

T. Vaiphei, C.J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 27-8-2014 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in NI Case No. 147 of 2013 discharging the respondent from the liability of the offence of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act” for short) as amended from time to time.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he extended loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to the respondent on 5-2-2012, which was repayable within one year. When the respondent did not repay the loan amount, the petitioner requested the respondent to return the amount from the month of January, 2013. The respondent, however, failed to do so. Ultimately, the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank on 10-4-2013 to the petitioner with a request to encash the cheque on or before 10-6-2013. The petitioner accordingly deposited the cheque in his SB A/C No. 8002012109758 at Tripura Gramin Bank, Bardowali Branch on 8-6-2013, but the same was dishonoured and was returned to the petitioner on 12-6-2013 for insufficiency of fund as reported by IDBI Bank, Kaman Chowmuhani Branch. The petitioner thereafter issued pleader’s notice under section 138 of the NI Act on 28-6-2013 to the respondent intimating him of the dishonour of his cheque and demanding immediate repayment of the loan within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which appropriate legal proceeding would be initiated against him. The notice was, however, returned to the pleader of the petitioner on 5-7-2013 with the report of the postman “Refused for incomplete address”. Similar notice was again issued to the respondent on 12-7-2013 at the Civil Secretariat where he was reportedly working, but the same was also returned on 25-7-2013 with the report that “[T]he addressee on leave for long without intimation.” The petitioner again issued similar notice to the respondent on 2-8-2013 by registered post, which was again returned with the endorsement “Refused” as the official designation had been changed. Another notice was sent by him to the respondent on 14-8-2013 which was returned on 18-8-2013 with the report of the postman “Refused, incomplete address. Returned to sender”. After ascertaining that the address was same, another notice was issued by his pleader on 23-8-2013 by registered post, but the same was returned to the pleader of the petitioner on 2-9-2013 with the postal endorsement “Refused” by the respondent.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and the same was numbered as N.I. No. 147 of 2013, but the same was made over to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/West Tripura for further proceedings. The respondent put in his appearance before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate through his counsel on 27-8-2014 to answer whether he pleaded guilty to the charge or not. The trial court, however, by misreading the statement of the petitioner recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 held that there had been absence of valid notice as the notice was not served within the statutory period and thereupon discharged him. Aggrieved by this, this revision is now filed by the petitioner.

4. It is the contention of Mr. DR Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statutory notice was duly served lastly on 29-8-2013 when the respondent refused to receive the notice without any further remark unlike on other occasions; the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have held that the statutory notice was duly served lastly on 29-8-2013 by his refusal to receive the notice without any remark unlike earlier occasions when he used to avoid the notice. He, therefore, submits that the trial court has acted illegally in discharging the respondent from the case; this calls for the interference of this Court. Strong reliance is placed by him on D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Bel