Satisfaction on the ground of delay, sufficiency of medical evidence, and right to participate in the proceeding are crucial in condonation of delay cases.

Heard M. S.S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially none had appeared on call for the respondent although the name of the counsel for the respondent is reflected in the Cause-list, and as such at the request of this Court, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor has assisted this Court. Later on, Mr. M.H. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent had appeared and he had made his submission.

2. By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of NICR Case No.2/2017 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chirang, Kajolgaon.

3. The petitioner is the accused in NICR Case No.2/2017 which was instituted under section 138 of the NI Act. The complaint case was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, as such the said complaint case was accompanied by a separate application under proviso to section 142(b) of the NI Act read with section 5 of the Limitation Act which was registered as Misc. Case No.39/2016.

4. In the said application it was projected that the petitioner was under treatment under the Superintendent of JSB Civil Hospital, Kajolgaon from 29.05.2016 and the Doctor had advised him to take bed rest for 6 months from 01.06.2016 and hence, on account of the alleged disease of ‘chronic arthritis with neuritis’, the respondent had prayed for condoning the delay of 5 months and 21 days.

5. The learned trial Court i.e. the Court of CJM, Chirang, Kajolgaon by order dated 17.02.2017, without assigning any reasons allowed the prayer of the respondent to file NICR Case as per the provision of law.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order and it is submitted that the various cases cited by the respondent had no relevance with the issue projected by the said learned Court. It is submitted that in the case of P. Raju Vs. U. Ram Babu, (2013) 0 Supreme(Mad) 632, the delay of 6 days was found to have occurred instead of 676 days as projected in the application and therefore, the decision by the learned trial Court was not interfered in view of the amendment of the provisions of NI Act with effect from 06.02.2005. Hence, it is submitted that the said case was not a case where delay of 6 months was condoned.

7. By referring to the medical certificate, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the common place diseases like arthritis and neuritis, it is not believable that a person would suffer 6 months of bed-rest and, as such, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court ought not to have relied on such a medical certificate which is not supported by any other medical documents like test report, X-ray, etc. and there is also nothing on record to show that the respondent had taken any medicines prescribed by the said Doctor.

8. Referring to the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic India (P)Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720, and it is submitted that the ratio decided in the said case was nowhere related to condonation of delay but the issue therein was the question of jurisdiction of Court to entertain a complaint case wherein notice was not issued within the jurisdiction of the said Court. Hence, it is submitted that the reliance upon the said case of the learned trial Court was erroneous.

9. Also referring to the case of Pawan Kumar Rai Vs. Mahendra Singh Nerura (2015) 1 Bankmann (SC) 144, it is submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner therein moved the High Court on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had relegated the parties back to the trial Court after setting aside the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court by restoring the criminal proceeding of the learned trial Court and, as such it is submitted that the ratio of the said case was not applicable in the present case.

10. The learned Senior