Kerala High Court
K Sasidharan vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.6720 OF 2019(H)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLRP 18/2015 DATED 08-08-2017 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1442/2014 IN CMP NO.492/2015 DATED
18.03.2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K SASIDHARAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. T. G. KUTTAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALAM
VILLAGE, MATTOM, NORTH, MAVELIKARA, KERALA.
BY K SASIDHARAN,(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA - 682 031
2 MANAGER
SREE SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
CHENGANOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER MR. JAMES PHILIPS - 689121.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU
R2 BY ADV. SMT.N.SUDHA
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2020, THE COURT ON 25.02.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6720/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.6720 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2020
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in the case S.T.No.492/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara.
2. The aforesaid case is instituted upon the complaint filed against the petitioner by the first respondent company for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The complaint in the case was originally filed in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of the First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara.
4. There was a delay of eight days in filing the complaint. The first respondent company had filed an application as Crl.M.C.No.6720/2019 3 Crl.M.P.No.1442/2014 for condoning the delay in filing the complaint.
5. After hearing the petitioner/accused, as per Annexure-2 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the aforesaid application and condoned the delay.
6. The petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.18/2015 before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikara challenging Annexure-2 order. As per Annexure-1 order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid revision petition.
7. The legality and propriety of Annexure-1 order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are challenged by the petitioner in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Heard the petitioner who appeared in person and also the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant.
9. Annexure-I order is dated 08.08.2017. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner, challenging Annexure-1 order, only on 26.09.2019.
10. It is stated in the petition filed before this Court that the delay in filing the complaint is not eight days but it is ten Crl.M.C.No.6720/2019 4 days. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, it does not make much difference whether the delay is eight days or ten days.
11. Section 142(1)(b) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque, within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. However, the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Act states that, the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.
12. What is required is the satisfaction of the court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period prescribed.
Crl.M.C.No.6720/20195
13. Annexure-1 order shows that the reason stated by the complainant for the delay in filing the complaint was that the records relating to the case were misplaced.
14. Learned Magistrate found that the reason stated by the complainant for the delay in filing the complaint is satisfactory. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, concurred with the aforesaid finding made by the learned Magistrate. I find no sufficient ground to take a different view.
15. A Division Bench of this Court, in Abdurehiman v. Sethu Madhavan : 2006 (4) KLT 33, has held that, while entertaining an application for condonation of delay under Section 142 of the Act, there is not even a requirement that the complainant should file an affidavit in support of the petition for condonation of delay. Court is conferred with the discretion to waive the period of one month prescribed for taking cognizance. When a court is invested with discretionary power, it has to make a choice between alternative courses of action and act according to the rules of reason and justice.
Crl.M.C.No.6720/20196
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no sufficient ground to invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with Annexure-1 order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or Annexure-2 order passed by the learned Magistrate. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr Crl.M.C.No.6720/2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.RP 18/15 DATED 8-8-2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA MADE IN ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 1442/2014 IN NO.492/15 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , MAVELIKKARA DATED 18.03.2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE