JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The revision is against an order dated 07.03.2020 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, at Tehatta, Nadia, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as not maintainable in connection with Complaint Case No. 160 of 2019 though the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia by an order dated 04.09.2019 took cognizance on the petition of complaint under Section 138 and read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act, 1881 (TR – 1203/19) and transferred the same to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia for trial;

2. The complainant/petitioner’s case in short is that in discharge of liabilities in respect of a loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lacs) only for the treatment of the accused/opposite party no. 1’s wife in April, 2019, the accused person i.e. Arup Biswas issued two cheques being No. 644517 dated 06.05.2019 for Rs. 2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Forty Thousand) and another cheque No. 64418 dated 11.05.2019 for Rs. 2,60,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Thousand) drawn on United Bank of India, Tehatta Branch, Nadia.

3. The complainant deposited the said two cheques with his Bank United Bank of India, Tehatta Branch, Nadia on 24.05.2019, within its validity period for encashment. The said two cheques were dishonoured and was returned with return Memo on 27.05.2019 with revealed “Funds insufficient”.

4. The complainant thereafter through his lawyer sent a notice of demand dated 14.06.2019 through Registered Post with acknowledgement duly received by the accused person demanding the said cheque amount of Rs 2,40,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Forty Thousand) and Rs.2,60,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Thousands) form him within 15 days from the receipt of the lawyer’s notice.

5. The accused person despite receipt of the notice of demand did not make any payment of the dishonored cheque amounts.

6. The complainant was bed ridden due to heavy fever and dysentery and was nearly hospitalized as such there is a delay of about 61 days of filing the instant application. The same is condonable and the petition of complaint is to be proceeded for trial.

7. The said complaint was filed before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 160 of 2019 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. The matter was taken up for hearing by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and on 04.09.2019 the Learned Magistrate took cognizance and transferred it to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia for trial.

9. The Learned Judicial Magistrate on 07.03.2020 was pleased to take up the petition and observed that on 04.09.2019 the petition was inadvertently transferred by the filing court. The Learned Magistrate also observed that the word cognizance simply denotes the ‘admission’ of the case and nothing else. The Learned Magistrate observed that she also did find a single sentence or paragraph in the petition in respect of prayer for condonation of delay by the complainant.

10. The learned Magistrate observed that no reasonable explanation was given as to the delay and there is no petition or prayer.

11. The petitioner submits that the petition of complaint itself speaks of the delay and there was a prayer for condonation of delay.

12. The petitioner submits that the primary object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to give relief to the person who has given the money to the borrower if he fails to repay back the amount.

13. Ample power has been given by the legislature by inserting the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act to protect the person who has given money from technicalities.

14. The petitioner states and submits that the delay in filing of the petition have been properly explained supported by medical papers.

15. Mr. Dipankar Aditya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Learned Magistrate e