The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to consider personal circumstances and substantive reasons behind delays in complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, aligned with legislative intent.

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner herein, which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956, has preferred the present petition, through its Managing Director & Authorized Signatory, seeking quashment of the order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.30, Ahmedabad in Misc. Application No.293 of 2009 as also the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.208 of 2013 and thereby, to allow Misc. Application No.293 of 2009 by condoning the delay of nine days caused in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”).

2. Learned advocate Mr. D.B. Patel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the reason behind the delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was urged that the Managing Director & Authorized Signatory of the petitioner-Company had gone out of station, during which time, he also suffered from Jaundice and took necessary treatment.

As a result thereof, delay of nine days had occasioned in the filing of complaint.

2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted that the trial Court ought not to have taken a hyper-technical view of the matter, as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay of nine days in filing the complaint. He submitted that the legal notice issued by the petitioner was received by the accused on 15.09.2009 and therefore, the complaint in question was required to be filed within 45 days from the said date.

However, on account of Diwali Vacation in the subordinate Courts of the State, the complaint could not be filed within time and when the trial Courts re-opened on 26.10.2009, the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner-firm had to go out of station. It was only on 08.11.2009 that the complaint could be filed resulting into a delay of nine days.

2.2 The learned advocate submitted that there was no suppression of fact nor any intention on the part of the petitioner to misguide the trial Court concerned. The petitioner, being the Authorized Signatory, had gone out of station, which fact was not considered by the trial Court concerned. He drew attention of the Court to the additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein, it is averred that during the period when he was out of station, he was suffering from Jaundice and had to take necessary treatment. He emphasized that the trial Court ought to have considered the provision of Section 142 (1)(b) of the N.I. Act, which confers jurisdiction upon the trial Court to take cognizance of a complaint filed after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies that he has shown sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period.

Hence, the delay ought to have been condoned.

2.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Ralli v. Maninder Singh Narula , (2014) 15 SCC 245 , particularly, on the following observations :

“20. However, when the issue of limitation has come up for the first time before the High Court, it ought to have dealt with the same on merits as per proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act. The said proviso appended to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act was inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and the legislative intent was, no doubt, in order to overcome the technicality of limitation period. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Amendm