ORDER

The petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, in C.M.P No.3211 of 2017 Dated 03.09.2018 and direct the lower Court to take cognizance of the complaint filed in un-numbered STC No. of 2018.

2.The petitioner herein is the complainant who has preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against the respondent/accused with the delay of 240 days. Hence, petitioner/company filed an application to condone the delay before the said Magistrate in C.M.P No.3211 of 2017 and on hearing both sides the learned trial Judge concluded that no valid reason was assigned for the delay of 240 days and accordingly, said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this Criminal Original petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of business transaction, the respondent issued four cheques for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- dated 26.07.2016, and when the cheques were presented for collection before the HDFC Bank Ltd., Thiruvottiyur on 27.07.20216, the same were returned as “funds insufficient”. Then, the petitioner issued a statutory demand notice to the respondent on 02.08.2016, for which the respondent issued a reply notice dated 26.08.2016, in which he admitted his liability and made a proposal to settle the matter amicably. Thereafter, the preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/company submitted that the petitioner mis-placed their original documents and the relevant materials. So, they were not able to file a complaint within a prescribed period as mentioned in Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act. This complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose under clause (c ) of the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, he submitted that the petitioner/complainat filed a petition to condone the said delay, but, for the above said reason, the application was dismissed by the trial Judge holding that no sufficient cause was shown in the petition. Further, he pointed out that, previously there was business transaction between the petitioner and the respondent, thus, the petitioner is having valid materials for invoking the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act proceedings. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the there is no provision to condone the delay under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Besides, the reason stated by the petitioner were insufficient. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application.

6. Considering the submissions on either side and also on a perusal of the records, it reveals that, from the year 2015, there was a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to delivery of granite blocks. During the course of such business, the petitioner paid entire invoice amount of a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- to the respondent through RTGS in two installments of Rs.11,00,000/- and 10,00,000/- dated 23.03.2015 and 25.03.2015 respectively and completed the entire payment as demanded by the respondent under the ''proforma invoice'' on 25.03.2015. The business transaction was not arranged as the respondent promised, and when the petitioner demanded for the re-payment, he issued four cheques dated 26.07.2016 and the same were presented before the HDFC Bank Ltd., Thiruvottiyur on the next day, which were returned as ''insufficient fund''. Thereafter, on 02.08.2016 the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent, for which the respondent replied via notice on 26.08.2016. On a perusal of the reply notice, it appears that the respondent admitted the amount received through RTGS from the petitioner.

7. The above facts clearly reveals t