Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Praful Mulchand Jain, was the accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by respondent no. 1, Abdul Sameer. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had taken a hand loan of Rs. 5 lakhs on 15.12.2008 and issued a cheque dated 2.1.2009, which was dishonoured. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, recorded verification of the complainant on 30.4.2009 and issued process against the petitioner on the same day. The petitioner claimed he came to know about the complaint only on 26.4.2010 when a police constable served summons at his address. He appeared and obtained bail on the same day, applied for certified copies of the process order on 17.5.2010, received them on 31.7.2010, and filed a Criminal Revision Application on 6.8.2010 challenging the issuance of process. The learned 6th District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, refused to register the revision application on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as the order was passed on 30.4.2009 and the revision was filed beyond 90 days. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the issue of limitation, noting that the petitioner had no knowledge of the process order until 26.4.2010. The court held that the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) runs from the date of knowledge of the order, not from the date of the order itself. Since the revision was filed on 6.8.2010, within 90 days from 26.4.2010, it was within limitation. The court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and directed the registration and hearing of the revision application on its merits. The writ petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Limitation for Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Computation of Limitation - The period of limitation for filing a criminal revision application under Section 397 CrPC runs from the date of knowledge of the order sought to be challenged, not from the date of the order itself, when the applicant had no prior knowledge. The court held that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the process order only on 26.4.2010 when summons were served, and the revision filed on 6.8.2010 was within 90 days from that date. (Paras 6-8) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Issuance of Process - The order of issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be challenged in revision. The court directed the Sessions Judge to register and decide the revision application on merits, as the limitation issue was erroneously decided. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal revision application challenging the order of issuance of process was barred by limitation, and whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in refusing to register the revision application on the ground of limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by the 6th District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, and directed the learned Sessions Judge to register the Criminal Revision Application and decide it on its own merits in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Limitation for criminal revision
- date of knowledge
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 397 CrPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
