Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chatrapati Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Amit Thepade, on 29 September 2003 for dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon issued process on 13 November 2003. Summons were served on the respondent on 6 December 2003, but he did not appear. Consequently, a bailable warrant was issued on 11 May 2004 and executed. The respondent then filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon on 16 October 2008, challenging the order of issuance of process, along with an application for condonation of delay (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008) seeking to condone a delay of 4 years and 7 months. The petitioner opposed the application. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application on 24 March 2009, condoning the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined whether the delay was sufficiently explained. The respondent claimed that he was not aware of the proceedings until the warrant was executed, but the court noted that summons were served and the respondent had knowledge of the case. The High Court held that the respondent failed to provide a sufficient cause for the entire period of delay and that the Sessions Judge had exercised discretion improperly. The court quashed the order condoning delay and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court considered whether a delay of 4 years and 7 months in filing a criminal revision could be condoned without adequate explanation - The High Court held that the Sessions Judge erred in condoning the delay as the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the entire period - The order condoning delay was quashed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in condoning a delay of 4 years and 7 months in filing a criminal revision application against the order of issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, without sufficient cause being shown by the applicant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Criminal revision
- Delay of 4 years 7 months
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 8
Criminal Writ Petition No. 570 of 2009
Shri P.D. Suryawanshi (holding for Shri D.N. Suryawanshi) for petitioner; Shri A.C. Darandale for respondent
Chatrapati Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of condonation of delay in filing criminal revision against issuance of process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original complainant) sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008, which condoned the delay of 4 years 7 months in filing the criminal revision application.
Filing Reason
The respondent (original accused) filed a criminal revision application against the order of issuance of process dated 13.11.2003 in S.C.C. No. 1136 of 2003 with a delay of 4 years 7 months, and the Sessions Judge condoned the delay.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon issued process on 13.11.2003. The Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon allowed the delay condonation application on 24.3.2009.
Issues
Whether the delay of 4 years and 7 months in filing the criminal revision application was sufficiently explained by the respondent.
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised discretion properly in condoning the delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay and that the order condoning delay was erroneous.
Respondent argued that he was not aware of the proceedings until the warrant was executed and that the delay should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the entire period of delay of 4 years and 7 months. The Sessions Judge's order condoning delay was improper and without adequate justification, as the respondent had knowledge of the proceedings earlier and did not explain the delay satisfactorily.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the judgment and order dated 24.3.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008, on the application for condonation of delay to file Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of issuance of process dated 13.11.2003 in S.C.C. No. 1136 of 2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon, be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
On 29.9.2003, petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 NI Act. On 13.11.2003, process issued. Summons served on 6.12.2003. Respondent did not appear; bailable warrant issued on 11.5.2004 and executed. On 16.10.2008, respondent filed Criminal Revision Application with delay condonation application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 10 of 2008). On 24.3.2009, Additional Sessions Judge allowed delay condonation. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 570 of 2009 on 5.8.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
- Limitation Act, 1963: 5
