Delay in fling cheque bounce complaint = But the acknowledgment card evidencing the receipt of the notice by the accused was not received by the petitioner and he has preferred complaints before the postal authorities and made personal enquiries also. He obtained a letter on 16/4/2005 from the Manager, Customer Care center, Ernakulam whereby he was informed that the matter is being enquired into. Subsequently, he persuaded the matter through his lawyer by filing complaint on 04/05/2005 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam. Then on 28/5/2005, he received a letter from the Customer Care centre, Ernakulam that the registered letter issued to the accused was delivered on 01/03/2005. After receipt of information from the postal authorities that the notice was delivered to the accused on 01/03/2005 which was intimated to the complainant only on 28/5/2005, the complaint was filed before the concerned court on 02/06/2005 along with petition to condone the delay. 4. As per the proviso to Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act which was inserted by Act 55 of 2002 came into effect from 06/02/2003, cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be taken by the court even after Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005 3 the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in Section 142(b). In the present case sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the complaint were specifically stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mistakenly overlooked the reasons stated therein and also the amended provisions of Section 142(b). It is not proper rather justifiable to dismiss the complaint for the fault on the part of the postal department and without any willful default on the part of the petitioner/complainant.


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2043 of 2005()


1. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. VELU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :22/06/2011

 O R D E R
                            M.C.HARI RANI, J
                            * * * * * * * * * * * *
                     Crl.R.P.No.2043 of 2005
                    ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 22nd day of June 2011

                               O R D E R

      Petitioner  in    Crl.M.P.No.2678/2005                is the revision

petitioner. That petition was filed to condone the delay of 46

days in lodging the complaint. The complaint was filed under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam dismissed the petition as

per order dated 08/07/2005. That order is challenged by the

revision petitioner by filing this revision petition.

      2.    Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

      3.    The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that the reasons for the delay in filing the complaint

were properly explained by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition which were not considered by the learned

Magistrate in a proper perspective which lead to miscarriage of

justice. It was sworn in the affidavit that after the receipt of the

dishonoured memo from the bank, he send a registered notice to

the accused on 26/2/2005 through the Head Post Office,

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005             2


Ernakulam.        But the acknowledgment card evidencing the

receipt of the notice by the accused was not received by the

petitioner and he has preferred complaints before the postal

authorities and made personal enquiries also. He obtained a

letter on 16/4/2005 from the Manager, Customer Care center,

Ernakulam whereby he was informed that the matter is being

enquired into. Subsequently, he persuaded the matter through

his lawyer by filing complaint on 04/05/2005 to the Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam. Then on 28/5/2005,

he received a letter from the Customer Care centre, Ernakulam

that the registered letter issued to the accused was delivered on

01/03/2005.       After receipt of information from the postal

authorities that the notice was delivered to the accused on

01/03/2005 which was intimated to the complainant only on

28/5/2005, the complaint was filed before the concerned court on

02/06/2005 along with petition to condone the delay.

      4.     As per the proviso to Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act

which was inserted by Act 55 of 2002 came into effect from

06/02/2003, cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act may be taken by the court even after

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005             3


the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that

he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the

period specified in Section 142(b). In the present case sufficient

reasons for the delay in filing the complaint were specifically

stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mistakenly

overlooked the reasons stated therein and also the amended

provisions of Section 142(b). It is not proper rather justifiable to

dismiss the complaint for the fault on the part of the postal

department and without any willful default on the part of the

petitioner/complainant.

      5.     Accordingly, I found that this Court should definitely

interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2678/2005 and that order is set aside.

The matter is remanded to the court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ernakulam and is directed to proceed with the

complaint in accordance with law. The complainant shall appear

before that court on 25/7/2011.

                                      (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

jsr
             // True Copy//     PA to Judge

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005    4

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005    5

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005    6

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005    7




                                M.C.HARI RANI, J




                             Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001




                                          ORDER




                            17th DAY OF JUNE 2001

Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005    8


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.