Crl.Rev.P. No. 27 of 2019

Page 1 of 3

Item No. 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

Crl.Rev.P. No. 27 of 2019

Chingangbam

Gulshan

Singh,

aged

about

34

years,

s/o Chingangbam Govin Singh, a resident of Khurai

Chingangbam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East

District, Manipur – 795005.

…Petitioner

- Versus -

Sharungbam Bung Bung, aged about 34 years, s/o Sharungbam

Mahihar Singh, a resident of Wangkhei Palace Compound, P.O.

Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001.

…Respondent

B E F O R E

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

For the petitioner

:

Mr. S. Chitaranjan, Advocate

For the respondent

:

None appears

Date of order

:

14-10-2022

O R D E R

[1]

The petitioner in this criminal revision petition, filed under Section

397 Cr.P.C., is the respondent in Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of 2019 on the

file of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West. He assails the order

dated 27-09-2019 passed therein, condoning the delay in the filing of a

complaint case in relation to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

[2]

Heard Mr. S. Chitaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Despite service of notice as long back as on 06-11-2019, evidenced by a

tracking report, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance before

this Court either in person or through learned counsel.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 27 of 2019

Page 2 of 3

[3]

The complaint case was initially filed by the respondent before the

learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East. By order dated 02-08-2019, the

learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East, condoned the delay of four days

in the presentation of the complaint case and issued summons to the

respondent therein. However, when it was brought to light by the respondent

in the complaint case, viz., the petitioner herein, that the Court did not have

territorial jurisdiction, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East,

returned the case, vide order dated 31-08-2019, for presentation before the

competent Court. Thereupon, the complainant approached the learned

Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, and filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of

2019 seeking condonation of the delay of twenty-one days in the

presentation of the complaint case. By the order, presently under challenge,

the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, condoned the delay

straightway without even putting the respondent in the miscellaneous case,

the petitioner herein, on notice. Aggrieved thereby, he filed this revision.

[4]

Mr. S. Chitaranjan, learned counsel, would contend that it was not

proper on the part of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, to

condone the delay in the presentation of the complaint case without

affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side. He would place reliance

on State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and others

[(1995) 1 SCC 42].

[5]

In the judgment cited, the Supreme Court observed to the effect

that delay in launching prosecution could not be condoned without notice to

the respondents and behind their back. Though this observation was made

in the context of prosecution under prohibition/excise laws, it would be

equally applicable to an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 27 of 2019

Page 3 of 3

Be it noted that Section 142 thereof requires a complaint in relation to an

offence punishable under Section 138 to be made within one month from

the date on which the cause of action arose, but the Court is empowered to

take cognizance of a complaint even after the prescribed period if the

complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making

a complaint within such period. Implicit in the provision is the requirement of

putting the respondent in the complaint case on notice, so that he can rebut

the claim of the complainant as to sufficient ca