A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must be filed within the statutory limitation, and failure to comply with Section 142(b) regarding delay results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent No.2 and Mr. Biplab Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, West Tripura, in connection with case No.NI 83 of 2015 wherein the accused-respondent had been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred to as 'the NI Act') and dismissed the application filed by the complainant-appellant.

3. A brief recapitulation of the facts of the instant case is necessary. The complainant-appellant was a professional contractor, whereas, the accused-respondent No.1 was the owner of one mixture plant situated at Bodhjungnagar. According to the complainant, both the complainant-appellant and the accused-respondent no.1 were known to each other for their business transactions. In the month of November, 2014, the complainant supplied stone chips to the accused amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only on credit with the assurance of repayment of the same. Thereafter, the accused issued one cheque bearing No.001738 dated 01.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) of the Union Bank of India, Ganaraj Chowmuhani, Agartala Branch. The complainant-appellant presented the cheque bearing No.001738 dated 01.01.2015 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- with the banker, and the same was returned back through a memorandum dated 01.01.2015 as 'payment stopped by drawer'. Accordingly, the cheque dated 01.01.2015 issued by the accused became dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice dated 20.01.2015 to the accused-respondent No.1 for payment of the said amount of money, but, despite service of the legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment of the said amount to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, resulting to filing of the present complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused-respondent no-1 herein.

4. The learned trial Court has examined the accused under Section 251 of the CrPC and the substance of the accusation as framed by the learned trial Court reads as follows:

' I, Sri R Bhattacharjee, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, do hereby state the substance to you namely, Joy Deb as follows:-

Allegation of the complainant is that you issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5 lakh to the cokplainant being No.001738 drawn on UBI, Ganaraj Chowmuni Branch, on 1.1.2015 and the complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment but the cheque was returned with memo dated 2.1.2015 and the complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment but the cheque was returned memo dated 2.1.2015 due to payment stopped by the drawer.

Subsequently, the complainant issued a demand notice to you on 20.1.2015 and you received the notice but you did not pay the amount to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the notice. It appears that you have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act, and within my cognizance'.

5. After perusal of the records, it is found that the complainant-appellant submitted his examination-in-chief and he was accordingly cross-examined.

6. On closure of the evidence of the complainant side, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to which he declined the evidence of the complainant, as adduced against him.

7. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on appreciation of evidences, the learned trial Court came to the finding that:-

'Prima facie, it is barred by limitation. Delay was condoned without giving an opportunity to the accused. The provision of the Section 142 (b) of the NI Act is a special procedure in law and it cannot be bypassed. The process of the Court to take cognizance o