Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1245 (BOM)

Manmandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Tukaram Dattu Pawar

2012-07-10

T.V.NALAWADE

body2012
Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 1. Both the petitions are filed for challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. The petitioner, Co-operative Bank has filed a private complaints for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent no.1. In one case viz. Case no.127 of 2008, there was a delay of two days caused for filing complaint and in the other proceeding there was delay of four days. The applications were moved for condonation of delay and notices of those applications were given to the accused. The Magistrate allowed the applications and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/-in each proceedings. Those two orders made by the Magistrate came to be challenged in the Criminal Revision Application no.183/2009 and 184/2009. The Sessions Court has allowed the Revisions and has set aside the orders made by JMFC. The Sessions Court has observed that sufficient opportunity was not given to the accused to file say and to lead evidence and so the orders cannot sustain. The Sessions Court has dismissed those two applications filed by the Bank. 2. Both the present matters were heard for final disposal. The copies of the relevant orders made by the Magistrate and the copies of the judgment delivered in revisional proceedings are produced. The submissions made in theses proceedings show that on the first occasion when the Magistrate had condoned the delay, the Revisional Court had allowed the Revision which was filed to challenge the order. The matters were remanded back by the Sessions Court and direction was given to JMFC to decide afresh both the applications filed by the complainant. 3. The record produced and the submissions made show that the bank had communicated that its employee appointed for filing criminal case was sick and was under medical treatment during the relevant period. The medical certificate issued by the Doctor was produced. Admittedly, both the sides filed pursis that they did not want to lead oral evidence. 4. The provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are similar to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It can be said that for condonation of delay sufficient cause is required to be shown and the Court is required to be satisfied that there was sufficient cause. 4. The provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are similar to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It can be said that for condonation of delay sufficient cause is required to be shown and the Court is required to be satisfied that there was sufficient cause. The condonation of delay is within the discretion of the Court and when sufficient cause is shown and delay deserves to be condoned, the Court can condone the delay. In the present matter, the delay of hardly four days was caused. The complainant is a bank and the cheque amount was more than Rs.12 lakhs. The medical certificate was produced. In these circumstances, the Magistrate allowed the applications and condoned the delay. The cost of Rs.200/-was also imposed. 5. When the Court exercised discretionary power which is given under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Revisional Court is not expected to interfere in the order. The reasoning given by the Revisional Court that time ought to have been given to file say and the parties ought to have been allowed to lead evidence, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that both the sides had filed pursis to the effect that they did not want to lead evidence. In these circumstances, the Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the Magistrate. The purpose of hearing opponent is only to follow principles of natural justice. 6. So both the petitions are allowed. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court passed in Revision Application nos.183 of 2009 and 184 of 2009 are hereby set aside. 7. The orders made by J.M.F.C. in two proceedings regarding condonation of delay are confirmed, but subject to condition that the Complainant-Bank deposits Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) in each case, in this Court within Seven days from the date of this order, failing which both the proceedings shall stand dismissed automatically. If the amount is deposited, the amount be given to respondent no.1 and the decision of this Court be sent to the concerned Court. Rule made absolute.