BRUSHMAN INDIA LTD. Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 11.11.2009 of the learned M.M., Dwarka Courts whereby the application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the 'Act') filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent Standard Chartered Bank seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint was allowed. The petition has been filed assailing the said order mainly on the ground that delay of 45 days in filing the complaint was not explained by the complainant and that being so, the Magistrate was not justified in condoning the delay vide the impugned order.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner had taken an overdraft facility of Rs. 3 crores from the complainant Bank. A cheque of Rs. 3 crores was given on 23.11.2008. It was returned dishonoured on 29.11.2008. Notice under Section 138, N.I. Act was given by the complainant Bank on 25.3.2009 and the same was received by the petitioner on 27.3.2009. The complainant Bank was required to file complaint within 15 days of the intimation of the receipt of information from the Bank. This period expired on 11.4.2009. It was within 30 days thereafter that the complainant could file the complaint. That being so, the period of filing of complaint expired on 10.4.2009. The complaint was filed on 25.6.2009, which was 45 days after the prescribed period of limitation. It was the intimation of dishonour of cheque, which gave rise to the cause of action.

(3.) THE aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioner herein submitting that once the limitation period had started, it could not be stopped till the time the condonation application is filed and each day's delay was required to be explained by the complainant Bank. It was averred that the complainant Bank failed to explain as to why the complaint could not be filed till 15.4.2009 when Mrs. Anuradha M. Suri was continuing as their attorney. It was also averred that in any case, the power of attorney was executed in favour of Mr. Prabhu on 3.6.2009, but the complaint was filed on 25.6.2009 without their being any explanation for such a delay.