A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained if filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application. Interference in acquittals requires strict adherence to evidentiary standards and legal procedures.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.9.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ani, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter bereferred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused purchased grocery articles worth Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and issued a post-dated cheque of Rs.80,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bagipul in his favour. The complainant presented the cheque before his banker, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement of “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued a legal notice on 22.01.2014, which was deemed to be served on 27.01.2014. The accused failed to make the payment; hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he used to purchase articles from the complainant. He denied that he had purchased the articles worth Rs.80,000/- from the complainant. He stated that he had issued two blank cheques to the complainant on 26.2.2013 at his request as a security. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured. He stated that he had made the payment of the entire amount to the complainant, and he was falsely implicated.

6. Statements of Vaneet Kumar (DW1), accused Mohar Singh (DW2), and Muni Lal (DW3) were recorded in defence.

7. Learned Trial Court held that the legal notice was issued to the accused asking him to make the payment. The complaint was to be filed within 30 days after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was deemed to be served on 27.1.2014. The complaint was filed on10.4.2014, which was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed; therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the complainant filed the present appeal asserting that the complaint was to be filed on or before 9.3.2014. It was drafted on 7.3.2014. Learned counsel erred in not filing the complaint within limitation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

9. I have heard Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

10. Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the Court had issued a notice and is deemed to have condoned the delay. The complaint was prepared on 7.3.2014 but was filed belatedly by the learned counsel. The complainant should not be faulted for the error of the learned counsel. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of Praveen Otarmal Parmar Vs. M/s Abhiroop Associates and another 2023:BHC-AS: