SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 989

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.T. SELVAM, J.
Gopal Pratapram Purohit – Petitioner
Versus
K.S. Maideen Batcha – Respondent
CRL. O.P. (MD) No. 2607 of 2015
Decided On : 23-02-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Haja Mohideen, Advocate.

The need to consider delay condonation applications on merits to prevent grave injustice, especially in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court allowed the petition seeking condonation of delay in representing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need to consider the application on merits to prevent grave injustice.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought direction for the complaint to be considered despite delay. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was returned due to delay in presentation.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petition, emphasizing the need to consider the condonation of delay application on merits to prevent injustice.

Issues: Delay in representing the complaint, applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the need to prevent injustice in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider delay condonation applications on merits to prevent grave injustice, especially in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, directing the Judicial Magistrate to take the condonation of delay application on file, issue notice to the respondent, consider the same on merits, and proceed further in the matter.

Judgment

1. This petition seeks a direction to learned Judicial Magistrate - Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur to take the petitioner's complaint unnumbered C.C. No. of 2014 on its file by considering the delay condone application on merits and adjudicate the same.

2. The petitioner has preferred a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon return thereof by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai is keeping with Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) CTC 666, the complaint has been presented before learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur. Learned Magistrate has returned the same informing thus:

"Complainant Present. Records Perused. As per the dictum laid down by our Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.2287/2009 dated 1.8.2014 between Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & another the complainant has not presented the written complaint within 30 days from the date of return i.e., on 22.09.2014 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th court, Esplanade, Mumbai. So taking into account the date of return as 22.9.2014 the date of presentation expires on 22.10.2014. Since 22.10.2014 to 24.10.2014 was declared as holidays on account of the Deepavali festival the presentation is calculated and which expires on 27.10.2014. Then the written complaint presented today i.e., 16.12.2014 is not within the stipulated time as contemplated in the above cited decisions of our Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, returned."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate has failed to consider the petition seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in representing the complaint.

4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply except when specifically excluded. There may be very many cases wherein, complainants of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are unable to represent the complaint before appropriate Court in keeping with the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) CTC 666, within the one month window provided therein. Whether they are justified in not doing so within the specific period would be a question for consideration by Court as otherwise grave injustice could result.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur is directed to take the application seeking condonation of delay on file, issue notice to the respondent, consider the same on merits and proceed further in the mater.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top