The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay condonation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be supported by sufficient justification and the party's awareness of the proceedings.

The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 07.03.2012 in C.M.P. No. 1258 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore by which the petition filed by the respondent to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed.

2. The respondent herein has filed the unnumbered Calander case contending that the petitioner is one of the subscribers of chit group No. G2G/307/KDM/9 for a chit value of Rs.3,00,000/- with a duration of 20 months and monthly subscription of Rs.15,000/-.

The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder of a chit and therefore the respondent paid the prize amount of Rs.2,43,000/-on 18.09.2007. After receipt of the prize amount, the petitioner committed default in payment of subscription amount, inspite of repeated demand. The petitioner was liable to pay Rs.1,21,122/-towards subscription amount with interest accrued thereon. After repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 20.09.2010 for Rs.1,21,122/-drawn on ICICI Bank, Trichy Road Branch, Coimbatore and on its presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. The respondent sent a statutory notice on 07.10.2010 for which the petitioner sent a reply on 18.10.2010 with false averments. Under those circumstances, the respondent has filed the complaint before the trial Court. There was a delay of 53 days in filing the complaint and therefore, the respondent filed CMP No. 1258 of 2011 to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application against which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendd that the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the court below has not assigned any reason at all for allowing the petition for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. In other words, the impugned order passed by the court below is a cryptic order by which the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he could not file an effective appeal or revision assailing such a cryptic order of the court below. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others) (2010) 3 SCC 732 to contend that a judicial order must be supported by reasons and in the absence of any reason for allowing the application, it can be construed that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and consequently it is liable to be set aside. Only a reasoned order would ensure that application of mind in the decision making process because, persons, who were adversely affected by an order must know the reasons based on which his claim or plea was rejected. In this case, the respondent has filed the application for condoning the delay of 53 days by simply stating that the case bundles have been mxied along with old case bundles and it could be traced for some time. It was further stated in the application for condonation of delay that the counsel for the respondent was entrusted with a bunch of cases all put in a single file, but unfortunately, the entire file was misssed by the counsel and it could be traced only after some time and therefore the delay had occurred. Such a reasoning asigned by the respondent is not supported by any affidavit by the concerned advocate and therefore, the plea raised by the respondent ought not to have accepted by the court below. Further, the counsel for the respondent had similtaneously conducted a case before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 422 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein and therefore, the theorey put forward by the respondent for condonation of delay of 53 days ought not to have been a