JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. — On consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the criminal revisions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

2. In these Criminal Revisions, petitioners assail the orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 25.08.2006 in I.C.C. No. 901 of 2006 and in I.C.C. No. 902 of 2006, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the complainant to condone the delay in filing the complain case under Section 5 of the Limita¬tion Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Limitation Act”, read with Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Brief fact of the case of the complainant-petitioner is that Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. had advanced the house-building loan to the accused-opposite party. There was an outstanding dues against the accused, for which he issued two account payee cheques of Rs.9,40,000/- each, on 28.10.2005 in favour of the complainant-Company drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bhubaneswar. The said cheque was presented before the Syndicate Bank, ORHDC Extension Counter, Bhubaneswar for collection, but the complainant was intimated that the cheque has been dishonoured due to ‘stop payment’ and insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant on 4/5.01.2006 sent two demand no¬tices to the accused in his address. The notices were received by the accused on 21.01.2006 and 14.01.2006 respectively, but the accused did not pay the amount due within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the complainant initiated a complaint case on 23.03.2006.

The complainant filed applications under section 142(b) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In such peti¬tions, the complainants averred that due to official process and as an investigation was made by the Vigilance Department in the Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. there has been delay of 7 and 18 days respectively in filing these present complaints. The complainant further averred that the delay was not intentional. Hence, the delay be condoned, otherwise it will cause irreparable loss to the financial institution. The peti¬tioners were annexed with affidavits of the Assistant Accounts Officer of the Corporation.

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, in the impugned orders held that no documents have been filed to believe the plea taken by the complainant. Hence, he rejected the petition for condona¬tion of delay. Such order of refusing to condone the delay has been challenged in this Revision Application. In the Revision Applications, the Corporation has filed two letters dated 25.10.2005 and 27.10.2005 indicating that Vigilance enquiry was going on regarding sanction of Rs.51,35,000/- in favour of M/s. Duro Wires Pvt. Ltd.

5. In course of hearing of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a pragmatic approach should be adopted to condone the delay, whereas learned counsel for the opposite party very emphatically submitted that absolutely no ground has been made out for condoning the delay in this case. Hence, he submitted that the Revision application should be dismissed.

6. Section 138 of the Act provides for penalty for disho¬nour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account of the drawer. In clause (a) to the proviso of the section, it is provided that nothing contained in that section shall apply unless the cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date, on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. In clause (b) of the said proviso, it is further provided that Section 138 of the Act shall not be attracted unless the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writ¬ing, to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. Claus