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

2024 Supreme(Ori) 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Dillar Mohallik – Appellant
Versus
Pramila Das – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.B. Dash, Advocate

Table of Content
1. acquittal based on delay in filing. (Para 1)
2. dispute over service of demand notice. (Para 2 , 3)
3. calculation of limitation period. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's power to condone delay with satisfaction. (Para 7)
5. impugn judgment due to misapplied service date. (Para 8)
6. appeal allowed; case remitted to trial court. (Para 9)

Judgment :

1. This appeal against acquittal under Section 378 (4) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned JMFC-Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Rourkela in 1CC No.455 of 2013 acquitting the accused Respondent herein of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, “the Act”) clearly on the ground of delay in presenting the complaint before the concerned Court and that too, without delay being condoned.

3. On the contrary, Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes and submits that not only the appellant has admitted about the fact that the demand notice was received by the Accused-Respondent on 23.04.2013, but also no application for condonation of delay has been filed to condone the delay in presenting the complaint and, therefore, the im

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top