The sufficiency of the cause shown for condoning the delay is crucial, and the cause shown should be sufficient for the court to believe the person for granting the relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 07.06.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Karur, in Cr. M.P. Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2019.)

1. The present revision petitions have been filed against the orders dated 07.06.20196, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tack Court, Karur, in Cr. M.P. Nos.2017 & 2018/2019 in and by which the learned Magistrate, condoned the delay in filing the complaint on certain terms.

2. The case of the respondents herein/complainant before the court below is that the petitioner herein had borrowed certain sums of money and in lieu of repayment, had issued cheques to be presented on a particular date. However, on presentation of the cheque, the same got dishonoured prompting the respondent herein/complainant to issue a lawyer's notice for which a reply was sent by the petitioner herein disputing the same. However, after receipt of the reply, the complaint was not filed within time, but with a delay, stating that since the respondents herein was suffering certain ailments, which prevented them from filing the complaint on time. It is the further averred by the respondents herein that since their presence during filing of the complaint was necessary and since they were suffering certain ailments and not able to present themselves before the court for filing the complaint, the delay had occasioned and, therefore, filed the miscellaneous petitions, praying the court below to condone the delay and for a direction to take the complaint on file. The court below, after hearing the parties and adverting to the submissions placed, condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the respective complaints on condition that the respondents herein pay a cost of Rs.500/- in each of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below in condoning the delay, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the delay in filing the complaint is fatal on the ground that though the respondents herein/complainant claims that they were suffering certain ailments and were taking treatment, however, they have not filed any proof to substantiate the ailment and in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate their ailment, the court below ought not have condoned the delay. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sections 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about 'sufficient cause' and not just a reason and, therefore, in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the respondent herein, the condonation of delay is per se impermissible.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on the following decisions to drive home the point that condonation of delay is not a matter of routine and that sufficient and justifiable cause should be shown to condone the delay :-

(i) Esha Bhattacharjee – Vs – Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.; and

(ii) Jaya Ravhava Colour – Vs – Euro Impex

5. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/complainants on the above contentions. This Court also gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record as also the decisions to which attention was drawn.

6. This Court, on even day, had passed an order condoning the delay in the case of Gnanavadivelan & Anr. – Vs – R.Dhanapalan (Crl. R.C. (MD) Nos.416 & 417 of 2019) wherein, this Court, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to condonation of delay, has held as under:-

“11. From a conspectus reading of the decisions quoted above, it is clear that it is the attitude of the party that matters and not the number of days delay. It has been cautioned that where the Court finds that the party, who failed to a