Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Marutirao Hosmani, Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Yadgir Branch, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2013. The revision petition had upheld an order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Yadgiri, in C.C.No.676/2008, which rejected an application dated 01.08.2012 filed by the complainant under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The background of the case is that the respondent, Suresh, obtained a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner's bank on 30.08.2004, agreeing to repay with interest at 15.5% in 36 monthly installments of Rs.17,000/-. Towards discharge of the loan, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.294011 payable at Syndicate Bank. The cheque was dishonoured, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court rejected the complainant's application under Section 142(b) of the Act, which sought to condone the delay in filing the complaint, on the ground that the complainant failed to prove valid service of notice of dishonour. The Sessions Judge upheld this order in revision. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition, holding that the complainant had not established service of notice as required under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Notice of Dishonour - Section 138, 142(b) - The complainant must prove valid service of notice of dishonour within the statutory period. Failure to do so renders the complaint not maintainable. The court upheld the rejection of the application to condone delay as the complainant failed to establish service of notice. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not to be exercised to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality or miscarriage of justice. The court found no such illegality in the impugned orders. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, in Crl.R.P.No.5/2013, upholding the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the JMFC, Yadgiri, in C.C.No.676/2008, rejecting the application filed by the complainant under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is correct and legal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal petition, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. The petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 138
- Section 142(b)
- Notice of Dishonour
- Service of Notice
- Condonation of Delay
- Complaint Filing
- Limitation
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (11) 2
Criminal Petition No.15517/2013
Sri A. Vijaykumar (for petitioner), Sri V.R. Sthawarmath and Sri B. C. Jaka (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders rejecting application under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 27.04.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.5/2013 and the order dated 15.12.2012 in C.C.No.676/2008, and to allow the application under Section 142(b) of the NI Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application under Section 142(b) of the NI Act was rejected by the JMFC and upheld by the Sessions Judge, leading to the filing of this petition.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Yadgiri, in C.C.No.676/2008, rejected the application dated 01.08.2012 filed under Section 142(b) of the NI Act. The Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, in Crl.R.P.No.5/2013, upheld that order on 27.04.2013.
Issues
Whether the complainant proved valid service of notice of dishonour as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
Whether the rejection of the application under Section 142(b) of the NI Act by the trial court and its affirmation by the revisional court were correct?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the orders rejecting the application under Section 142(b) were erroneous and should be set aside.
Respondent supported the impugned orders, contending that the complainant failed to prove service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The complainant must prove valid service of notice of dishonour within the statutory period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Failure to do so renders the complaint not maintainable, and the court cannot condone the delay under Section 142(b) without such proof.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is against an order dated 27.04.2013, passed in Crl.R.P.No.5/2013 by the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri.
By the said order, an order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the JMFC at Yadgiri, in C.C.No.676/2008, rejecting an application dated 01.08.2012 filed by the complainant, under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) was upheld.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.No.676/2008 before the JMFC, Yadgiri. On 01.08.2012, the complainant filed an application under Section 142(b) of the Act, which was rejected by the JMFC on 15.12.2012. The complainant filed a revision petition, Crl.R.P.No.5/2013, before the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, which was dismissed on 27.04.2013. The complainant then filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was dismissed on 07.11.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 142(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
