Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Bhai Sheth, was the original accused No. 2 in a criminal complaint filed by M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 7,94,70,512. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, issued process against the petitioner and eight others. The petitioner sought to challenge this order by filing a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court, but there was a delay of about 18 months. He filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Court rejected the condonation application vide order dated 21st January 2019 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1570 of 2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to pursuing other remedies, including a quashing petition before the High Court, which was withdrawn. The respondent No. 1 opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the explanation was not satisfactory and that the Sessions Court had correctly exercised its discretion. The court observed that the petitioner did not demonstrate any legal impediment or due diligence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the Sessions Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Condonation of Delay - Section 397 CrPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Petitioner sought condonation of 18 months delay in filing revision against issuance of process - Court held that the explanation of 'pursuing other remedies' was not sufficient cause as the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence or any legal impediment - Held that the Sessions Court rightly exercised discretion in rejecting the application (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Court erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application against the order of issuance of process in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Sessions Court rejecting the condonation of delay application. The court held that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 18-month delay and that the Sessions Court had correctly exercised its discretion.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation for criminal revision
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- Discretion of court
- Delay of 18 months
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No. 865 of 2019
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi I/by. Anuj Jhaveri, Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. Hrishikesh Chawan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1; Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No. 2 – State
M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application against the order of issuance of process in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 21st January 2019 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the condonation of delay application, and to allow the delay to be condoned so that the Criminal Revision Application could be heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against him in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sought to challenge it by way of revision, but there was a delay of about 18 months in filing the revision.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Court at Bombay in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1570 of 2018 in Criminal Revision Application rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay on 21st January 2019.
Issues
Whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay of 18 months in filing the Criminal Revision Application?
Whether the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the condonation of delay application?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the delay was due to pursuing other remedies, including a quashing petition before the High Court, which was withdrawn, and that the delay was not intentional.
Respondent No. 1 argued that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the explanation of 'pursuing other remedies' without demonstrating due diligence or any legal impediment does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 397 of the CrPC. The discretion exercised by the Sessions Court in rejecting the application was proper and not liable to be interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 21st January 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court at Bombay in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1570 of 2018 in Criminal Revision Application, thereby rejecting the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed on 20/12/2016 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The Magistrate issued process. The petitioner sought to challenge the process order by filing a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court, but there was a delay of about 18 months. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 21st January 2019. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 8th July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 397
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
