Delhi District Court
Ivender Singh vs . State on 7 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID NO: 02401R0410562011
CR NO: 78/2011
IVENDER SINGH vs. STATE
U/s 138 NI ACT
IN THE MATTER OF
Ivender Singh
S/o Sh.Jagjit Singh
R/o 5C/72, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. .....Petitioner / Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
2. Suresh Kumar Kalra
Prop. M/s Sukh Raj Di Kulfi,
13A, W.E.A., near 100 Quarters,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 26.7.2011 Date of Institution : 07.09.2011 Date of final hearing : 07.02.2012 Date of final order : 07.02.2012 ORDER ON REVISION
1. This revision is preferred by complainant of a 138 NI Act matter against order of Ld. Magistrate dt.26.7.2011 whereby his application seeking condonation of delay in filing Page 1 / 4 of Revision Ivender Singh Vs. State dt 07.02.2012 2 of complaint as well as complaint U/s 138 NI Act were dismissed.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel Sh. Anand Maheshwari advocate for revisionist and Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. Sumit Tyagi advocate for respondent and have perused the revision file as well as Trial court Record
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision as per complaint preferred by revisionist before Ld.M.M. are that he enjoyed good relation with respondent Suresh Kumar and in December'2008 , he extended a friendly loan of Rs.55,200/. In order to repay this loan, complainant was issued four cheques all dated 27.2.2009 by respondent cumulatively for amount Rs.55,200/. All the cheques were dishonored for insufficiency of funds by the banker of respondent. Demand notice was sent on 2.4.09 but still the payment was not made. Consequently a complaint U/s 138 NI Act was preferred on 11.9.09. Since the complaint was apparently time barred, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed by the then counsel of the revisionist, stating therein that the complaint could not be filed within stipulated time on account of the fact that the original documents were misplaced and were found later on .
4. Notice of the application seeking condonation of delay was issued to respondent and finally vide the impugned order dated 26.7.2011, the condonation application of the revisionist herein was dismissed. Hence, this revision.
5. While opening his submissions, it is argued by LD. Counsel on behalf of revisionist that Ld. Magistrate ought to allow the condonation since there was delay of 10 days. Perusal of the condonation application moved before Ld. MM shows that there is no Page 2 / 4 of Revision Ivender Singh Vs. State dt 07.02.2012 3 specific mention as to how much delay was sought to be condoned. Upon calculating the period of limitation out of the documents available on record, it is found that there is a delay of more than 3½ months as against pleaded delay of 10 days.
6. Despite this it is further argued that there is no delay of 3½ months in so far as this complaint was filed before the Court of CMM on 6.7.2009. Perusal of record shows that this is factually incorrect plea in so far as the endorsement made by office of CMM, Delhi is dated 2.9.2009 and not as 6.7.2009 as argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist.
7. As far as condonation of delay in filing of a complaint 138 NI Act is concerned, previously prior to 6.2.2003 there was no statutory provision in this regard but in order to accommodate bonafide delay a proviso was added by the Parliament in Section 142 sub section (b) of the NI Act which reads :
Section 142(b) NI Act (Proviso) Provided that cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he has sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period.
8. In the application before Ld. Magistrate neither period of delay sought to condone is mentioned nor any specific plea is made as to how the original documents were lost and where and when they were found later on. Interestingly perusal of para 4 of this revision reveals that the documents lost on unspecified date were found on 5.6.09. As mentioned supra, this complaint has been filed on 2.9.09. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why the complaint was not filed for almost three months Page 3 / 4 of Revision Ivender Singh Vs. State dt 07.02.2012 4 even after the documents were traced.
9. In view of the above I see no merits in this revision. The impugned order of Ld. Magistrate is found to be correct legally and factually. Revision file be consigned to RR and TCR be sent back with copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 7.2.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi Page 4 / 4 of Revision Ivender Singh Vs. State dt 07.02.2012