The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions regarding the condonation of delay in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to order dated 26.07.2017 made in C.R.P.No.49 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Court, Erode reversal of the order dated 15.11.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2298 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.1224 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records relating to order dated 26.07.2017 made in C.R.P.No.49 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, reversing the order dated 15.11.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2298 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.1224 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode and set aside the same.

2. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode in S.T.C.No.1224 of 2011. Thereafter, by order dated 14.10.2014, it was directed to be represented before the Court within the jurisdiction of the complainant's bank as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another. The complaint along with the documents filed by the complainant were returned to the complainant for filing it in the proper Court within a period of thirty days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2298 of 2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode to condone the delay of 635 days in representing the complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 15.11.2016, condoned the delay, against which, the respondent/accused preferred a revision before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode in C.R.P.No.49 of 2016. The revision was allowed by order dated 26.07.2017 for the reason that the petitioner had not given the name of the counsel, who filed the complaint before the Magistrate Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.8,89,600/- for his business needs and promised to repay the same and in discharge of the said liability, he issued a cheque for the said amount, which on presentation was dishonoured for the reasons “Funds insufficient”. Thereafter, following the procedure, statutory notice was issued and thereafter, complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode on 09.09.2011 within time. The accused appeared, executed bond and participated in the trial. Thereafter, there have been periodical adjournments. Thereafter, on 14.10.2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode returned the complaint directing the complainant to file the same before the concerned Court within 30 days as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it is stated that the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act to be normally filed before the jurisdiction Court, where the complainant bank is situated.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's counsel before the trial Court one Mr.Anand neither took return of the complaint and filed it before the appropriate Court nor inform the same to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the same only during March, 2016. Immediately, the petitioner approached the said Advocate Anand to return the bundle, who failed to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Advocate Association, Erode on 27.05.2016 seeking return of bundle with original cheque and change of vakalat. Thereafter, the bundle and change of vakalat was handed over to the petitioner. On 01.06.2016, the petitioner sent a letter to the Advocate Association seeking no further action against the Advocate Anand. The petitioner thereafter engaged another Advo