TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as arisen but the Magistrate has the discretion to take cognizance even beyond such period, provided the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. The provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act are akin to Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code which while providing for limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences, saves the power of the Court upon being satisfied of the sufficient cause for taking cognizance beyond the period of limitation. Impugned order set aside - petition allowed. - Crl. Petn. No. 06/2020 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2020 - Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, C.J. For the Appellant : Sankar Lodh and K. Saha, Advocates For the Respondents : P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, the accused approached the complainant and requested to get time up to 21-09-2017 to make the payment and accordingly, the complainant did not file the case before this Ld. Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 2/8/2017, but thereafter, the accused on 21-09-2017 neither made the payment nor met the complainant and for this reason the complainant could not be filed within one month from the date of receipt of the notice as mentioned above. Since the accused did not pay of the amount, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed before the concerned Magistrate on 25.09.2017 on which, by the impugned order the Magistrate took cognizance. 3. Appearing for the petitioner original accused, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s inserted a proviso which provides that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. 6. What emerges from the said provision is that the Magistrate would not take cognizance of a complaint which is not made within one month of the date on which the cause of action in terms of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 has arisen but the Magistrate has the discretion to take cognizance even beyond such period, provided the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. 7. The provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act noted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the question of limitation, the above observations in case of Surinder Mohan Vikal (supra) were noted with approval. 10. In case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutt and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 297, it was observed as under: 7. Section 473 confers power on the Court taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. Obviously, therefore in respect of the offences for which a period of limitation has been provided in Section 468, the power has been conferred on the Court taking cognizance to extend the said period of limitation where a proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay in launching the prosecution could not have been condoned without notice to respondents and behind the back and without recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. 12. In case of P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) reported in (2008) 13 SCC 229, the above observations of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre (supra) were noted with approval. It was observed as under: 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind on the said averments. It did not issue any notice upon the appellant to show cause as to why the delay shall not be condoned. Before condoning the delay the appellant was not heard. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre (1995) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
