1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 2644/2022)

KAMARAJ

APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MADHAIYAN

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned

order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras, which upheld the rejection of

his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”).

The view taken by the trial Court was that

general orders of this Court dated 23.03.2020,

06.05.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the periods

of limitation in respect of causes or offences listed

in general or special laws (including the offence

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act) did not apply in

the facts of the case.

The facts necessary for the disposal of this

proceeding is that the cheque in this case was

returned on 23.03.2020. Soon thereafter, country-wide

general lock-down was ordered by the Union Government,

which was extended further till 18.05.2020.

Digitally signed by

NEETU KHAJURIA

Date: 2022.08.27

12:39:45 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

The appellant caused a statutory notice under

Section 138 issued on 19.05.2020. In the meanwhile,

this Court had taken

suo motu

cognizance in

extraordinary circumstances, which has arisen on

account of general lock-down and directed by order

dated 23.03.2020, inter alia, as follows :

“…..it is hereby ordered that a period of

limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective

of the limitation prescribed under the general

law or special laws whether condonable or not

shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till

further order(s) to be passed by this Court in

present proceedings.”

On 06.05.2020, in the same

suo motu

proceedings, this Court extended the period of

limitation in the following terms :

“…. it is hereby ordered that all periods of

limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall be

extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till

further order(s) to be passed by this Court in

the present proceedings.”

As is evident from the above extract, a pointed

reference to periods of limitation under the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the N.I. Act were

made.

Similar orders were made on 08.03.2021,

27.04.2021 – both of which specifically extended the

period of limitation under the N.I. Act.

The Magistrate refused to entertain the

appellant’s complaint in this case on the ground that

even though the general period of limitation had been

3

extended by the Court, it was open to him to issue a

statutory notice in terms of Section 138 – through

WhatsApp, Telegaram or other messaging services.

It is contended by the appellant that this

over-looked the fact that such relief or relaxation of

the terms of the statute had not been adverted to in

the orders extending the periods of limitation.

It is further submitted that such benefit – if

one could so term it – of issuing notices through

other modes, such as messaging services, e-mails etc.

were granted only later by Order dated 10.07.2020.

That order to the extent it is relevant states as

follows :

“Service of notices, summons and exchange of

pleadings/documents, is a requirement of

virtually every legal proceeding. Service of

notices, summons and pleadings, etc. have not

been possible during the period of lockdown

because this involves visits to post-offices,

courier companies or physical delivery of

notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore,

consider it appropriate to direct that such

services of all the above may be effected by

email, fax, commonly used instant messaging

services, such as Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal,