The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 138 and 142(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the curable nature of the defect in case of delay in filing the complaint.

1. This criminal revision is filed seeking to call for the records in C.A.No.178 of 2007 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 19.07.2007 made in C.C.No.6058 of 2003, on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and set aside the Judgment dated 05.01.2008 passed in C.A.No.178 of 2007.

2. The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai convicted the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/-to the respondent within a period of three months. On appeal, the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge Court, Chennai, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence of imprisonment by reducing it to six months simple imprisonment and ordered the compensation to be paid to the respondent within a period of two months.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused would only contend that the complaint before the lower court was filed belatedly, without an application for condonation of delay, hence, the complaint itself is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would only contend that there was no delay and even if there is a delay, there is no need for filing application since, as per the amendment in Section 142 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the court is satisfied with the delay it can condone the delay and even otherwise, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is a curable defect. Therefore, the court below has rightly held that there is no delay in filing the complaint. He would further contend that the court below has categorically held that the complaint itself was filed within the time from the date of receipt of acknowledgment card. Therefore, the order passed by the court below need not be interfered with.

5. Heard both sides. By consent of the counsel for both the parties, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal.

6. The only point which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay in filing the complaint. The court below has given a clear finding that the statutory notice, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount was issued on 15.04.2003 and it was served on the revision petitioner/ accused on 23.04.2003, which is marked as Ex.A4. As per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he should have filed the application on or before 08.06.2003, taking into consideration the date of service of notice on 23.04.2003 and the complaint has been filed only on 23.06.2003 before the court below. The finding of the court below is that even though the notice was served on 23.04.2003, it reached the complainant/ respondent herein only on 19.05.2003 and within the stipulated time, he has filed the complaint on 23.06.2003. Therefore, if that date is taken into consideration, it shall be construed that the complaint was filed in time.

7. Even otherwise, if we take the original date of filing of complaint into consideration, the lower court has considered that sufficient reason has been given and the court can condone the delay, as per the provision under Section 142 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The fact remaining that acknowledgment card itself was received much later. Therefore, the reasoning given by the court below is also correct. I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the court below.

8. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision relied on by the counsel for the respondent reported in (R. Kanthimathi and 2 others vs. Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch, rep. by its Senior Manager, Vijayaragaran, Dharmapuri) (2007) 4 CTC 524 in which case also, this Court had an occasion to consider that there was no application to condone the delay along with the complaint and held that non-filing of an affidavit or pe