MARUTIRAO HOSMANI Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, according to the petitioner is, that the respondent obtained personal loan of Rs. 50,000/ -, under Account No. MTL 52141329346, on 30.08.2004, agreeing to repay with interest at 15.5%, in 36 monthly installment of Rs. 17,000/ -, from him. Towards discharge of the loan and the interest, a cheque bearing No. 294011 payable at Syndicate Bank at Yadgiri, on 30.04.2008, was issued. The said cheque, on presentation, was returned by the Bank, with an endorsement dated 22.09.2008 "dishonoured for insufficient funds". A demand notice to pay the cheque amount was sent on 24.09.2008 and payment was not made. Hence, a private complaint was filed on 21.11.2008, before the Additional JMFC at Yadgiri, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded, cognizance of the offence, under Section 138 of the Act was taken and process was issued to the accused. After recording the plea of the accused, who denied the charge, trial took place. At the stage of recording statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, an application under Section 142(b) of the Act, to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the complaint was filed. Statement of objections was filed to the application by the accused. The JMFC, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of T.S. Muralidhar v. H. Narayan Singh,, (2010) 5 Kar.L.J. 149, rejected the application, by being of the view, 'that he is not having any jurisdiction to condone the delay after taking of the cognizance of the offences, registration of criminal case and issue of process'.

(3.) SRI A. Vijaykumar, learned advocate, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Ralli v. Maninder Singh Narula, : (2014) 15 SCC 245 and submitted that both Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have committed material error and illegality in not keeping in view the legislative intent in inserting the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act. He submitted that in view of the decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, the decision in Sri T.S. Muralidhar's case, is no more good law. Learned counsel contended that both impugned orders being contrary to the decision in Pawan Kumar Ralli's case, are liable to be quashed and the matter remanded to the JMFC, to decide the application filed under Section 142(b) of the Act.