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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
G. Janaki – Petitioner
Versus
C. Arasukumar - Respondent
CRL.M.P.No.1422 of 2016 in CRL.RC.No.SR.5072 of 2016
Decided On : 11-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.B.Ravichandran for Mr.N.Subramani
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Easwaradhas

The importance of bona fides in seeking condonation of delay and the need for a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Criminal Revision - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The key legal provisions were interpreted in the context of condonation of delay in filing a Criminal Revision Petition.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner/Accused sought to condone a delay of 122 days in filing a Criminal Revision Petition, citing health and family issues as reasons for the delay. The Respondent/Complainant contested the delay and argued that the reasons provided were not satisfactory.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the reasons provided by the Petitioner/Accused for the delay were not satisfactory and lacked bona fides. The Court emphasized the importance of bona fides in seeking condonation of delay and dismissed the Petition.

Issues: The main issue was the justification for the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition and whether the reasons provided were bona fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay and the importance of bona fides in seeking condonation of delay.

Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition was rejected.

ORDER :

The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Crl.M.P.No.1422 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 122 days in filing the Criminal Revision in SR.5072 of 2016.

2. According to the Petitioner/Accused, the Respondent/Complainant had filed a Petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by using forged documents and further, the Respondent/Complainant had failed to explain the different signatures in Ex.P1/Pro-note etc.

3. The stand of the Petitioner/Accused is that he filed a Petition in Crl.Mp.No.1285 of 2015 on the file of the trial Court under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking an expert opinion. The trial Court had ultimately dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.1285 of 2015 in C.C.No.153 of 2014 on 04.07.2015 assigning reasons thereto.

4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused submits that the Petitioner/Accused was suffering from Jaundice problem and also because of the family problem, she could not contact his Learned counsel and obtain a copy of the order passed in the subject matter in issue. Later, the Petitioner/Accused's learned counsel gave the certified copy of the order in question during the first week of January 2016. Immediately, the Petitioner/Accused had arranged money and handed over the case bundle to the Learned counsel at High Court, Madras. Thereafter, the counsel for the Petitioner/Accused has filed the Revision Petition before this Court on 02.02.2016 and in this regard, there had occasioned a delay of 122 days in preferring the present Criminal Revision which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that the Respondent/Complainant had filed C.C.No.153 of 2014 against the Petitioner/Accused before the Fast Track Court, Alandur on 28.04.2014 and the Petitioner/Accused appeared before the Court on 04.08.2014 and was questioned on 06.08.2014 and thereafter, continuously projected petitions under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Court and only her Learned counsel used to appear before the Court for filing petition under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant projects an argument that in the main case in C.C.No.153 of 2014 on the file of the trial Court, the Respondent/Complainant filed the above affidavit on 25.09.2014 and the matter was posted for cross examination on the side of the Petitioner/Accused but she took adjournments on to the following dates viz., 07.10.2014, 20.10.2014, 13.11.2014, 01.12.2014, 10.12.2014, 22.12.2014. The Petitioner/Accused cross examined P.W.1 on the following dates viz., 22.12.2014, 06.01.2015, 22.01.2015, 04.02.2015, 10.02.2015, 16.02.2015, 17.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 26.02.2015, 04.03.2015, 11.03.2015 and finally, cross examination of P.W.1 was closed on 16.03.2015 and adjourned for the defense side witness on the following dates viz., 25.03.2015, 08.04.2015, 13.04.2015 and 20.04.2015. At that time only, the Petitioner/Accused had constrained to file the Crl.M.P.No.1285 of 2015 before the trial Court (under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

7. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant is that the Petitioner/Accused had admitted the execution of the cheque in the subject matter in issue and its dishonour and also the acknowledgment of statutory notice and failed to send a reply notice and only for adopting a dilatory tactics, the Petitioner/Accused had chosen to file the present Crl. M.P.No.1422 of 2016 before this Court. Furthermore, on 06.10.2015, the Petitioner/Accused again with mala-fide intention projected two petitions viz., one under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code and another under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was adjourned to 12.10.2015, 15.10.2015, 26.10.2015, 02.11.2015 & 1












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