Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against respondent no. 1 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, Goa. The complaint was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 142 of the Act. However, the drawee bank was situated in Panaji, not Ponda. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, which held that such complaints must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 29.09.2014, returned the complaint for presentation to the proper court. The papers were physically returned to the petitioner on 09.10.2014. The petitioner refiled the complaint on 22.10.2014, within 30 days of the return. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint as time-barred, holding that the refiling was beyond the limitation period. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by way of a criminal writ petition. The High Court considered the legal issue of whether the refiled complaint was within limitation. The court noted that the original complaint was filed within limitation, and the complaint was returned due to lack of jurisdiction. The court applied the principle from Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod that if a complaint is returned and refiled within 30 days, it should be treated as filed within limitation. The court found that the petitioner refiled the complaint on 22.10.2014, which was within 30 days from 09.10.2014 (the date of physical return). Therefore, the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint as time-barred. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Limitation for Refiling - Section 138, Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 within limitation but before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction. The complaint was returned on 29.09.2014 and physically handed over on 09.10.2014. The petitioner refiled the complaint on 22.10.2014, within 30 days of return. The court held that as per the principle in Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, the refiled complaint is deemed to be within limitation, and the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing it as time-barred. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was returned for lack of jurisdiction and refiled within 30 days of return, is within limitation.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, returning the complaint and the subsequent dismissal as time-barred is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Limitation for refiling complaint after return
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act
- Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod principle
- 30-day window for refiling
