K. KUMAR Vs. M. NARENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition was filed against an Order dated 10.01.2014, passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No. 19267/2012, by which, an application filed by the petitioner, under S. 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), was dismissed and consequently, the complaint having not been filed within the prescribed period was rejected, i.e., on the ground of bar of limitation.

(2.) THE petitioner was the complainant and the respondent was the accused in the Court below. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent, for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act. Gist of the complaint is, that a cheque dated 09.07.2012, issued by the respondent, towards discharge of debt, when presented for collection was dishonoured, with an endorsement dated 17.07.2012 - "funds insufficient". The said cheque, when re -presented on 21.07.2012, was dishonoured again and was returned on 23.07.2012, with an endorsement "funds insufficient". An attempt was made for recovery of the cheque amount by issue of a notice dated 18.08.2012. There being failure to make payment, the complaint was filed on 04.12.2012, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, alleging commission of an offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act.

(3.) SRI K. Srinivasa, learned advocate, contended that the learned Magistrate has committed error and illegality in refusing to condone short delay of 67 days. He submitted that the respondent having not led rebuttal evidence, the impugned order is perverse. He contended that satisfactory explanation for the delay having been offered, the contrary finding recorded in the impugned order is unsustainable. Learned counsel submitted that a meritorious complaint has been thrown away purely on technical ground of delay and the impugned order having resulted in miscarriage of justice, interference is called for.