Madras High Court
Amirtharaj vs Jamaludeen on 3 September, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.R.C.(MD) No.370 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1&2 of 2015 Amirtharaj ... Petitioner/Accused -vs- Jamaludeen ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.06.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No.8552 of 2014 on the file of the learned Fast Track (Magisterial Level) No.1, Nagercoil in STC No.241 of 2015 and set aside the same. !For Petitioner : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan ^For Respondent : :O R D E R
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner before the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. Learned Magistrate returned the complaint and directed the complainant to re-present the same within 30 days before the learned Fast Track (Magisterial Level) No.1, Nagercoil.
2. The complainant did not re-present the petition within 30 days as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and the petition was represented along with a delay of 21 days, which is disputed by the revision petitioner stating that there is a delay of 24 days.
3. Learned Fast Track (Magisterial Level) No.1, Nagercoil, by order dated 01.06.2015 has taken the case on file, by allowing the petition filed by the complainant with the delay of 21 days, on file.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Court below did not even count the duration of delay in a proper manner and when there is a delay of 24 days, the Court below calculated the delay only as 21 days. This irregularity is curable one.
5. The next contention is that when the defacto complainant did not give any concrete reason to condone the delay, the Court below ought not to have condoned the delay in re-presentation.
6. A perusal of the petition filed by the defacto complainant reveals that in Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, it is stated that because of the illness, he was not able to meet his Advocate and ask him to re-present the petition within the stipulated time.
7. It is the case of the revision petitioner that no medical report has been filed by the defacto complainant to prove his illness and therefore, the Court below ought not to have accepted that reason.
8. In each and every case, the Court cannot not expect the medical report to be produced to prove the illness. Considering the amount of delay involved, the Court below has chosen to condone the delay with an observation that procedural laws are handmaid of justice. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below is right in being lenient with the procedural aspect of the case, when the Court is concerned S.VIMALA,J., ar more with the substantial justice, which is based on the merits of the case.
9. Under such circumstances, this Criminal Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
1. Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
2. Fast Track (Magisterial Level) No.1, Nagercoil.
.