KISHCO LTD Vs. K A VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.12.2011 in C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2011 has been filed by one Shijo T.S. Lakshmi Vihar, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi who was the Area Sales Manager in Kishco Ltd., Mumbai alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent herein. The case was that the accused issued cheque bearing No. 001487 dated 14.6.2010 and the same was dishonoured on presentation owing to insufficiency of funds, on 3.8.2010. There was a delay of 110 days in filing the said complaint before the Court. The petitioner company was represented through its authorised person as well as the Area Sales Manager Mr. Shijo T.S. C.M.P. No. 2575 of 2011 was filed by him under section 142(b) of the N.I. Act for condoning the delay citing the reason of his extensive travelling in connection with employment for not making the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period. Except the said averment, no document whatsoever was produced to support the said contention. Evidently, in the circumstances, the complainant was directed to appear before the Court for enquiry. Admittedly, in spite of repeated directions, the said Shijo T.S. who filed the complaint failed to appear before the Court and no proper explanation was also offered for his non-appearance. It was in the said circumstances that the learned Magistrate dismissed C.M.P. No. 2575 of 2011 filed for condoning delay. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2011 was also dismissed. Now, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner company M/s. Kishco Ltd., Mumbai through the authorised person and the Senior Manager Sales, Sri. Somasundaran K. Nair, stating that Sri. Shijo T.S. is no longer in the service of the company and therefore, seeks for allowing C.M.P. No. 2576 of 2011 after setting aside the impugned order. It is stated in the revision petition that the Area Sales Manager Shijo T.S. who filed the complaint is no longer in the service of the company and that the complaint could not be filed in time only on account of his extensive travelling in connection with the employment. In fact, the same reason was assigned by Shijo T.S. himself in C.M.P. No. 2575 of 2011, before the learned Magistrate. However, no document was produced in support of the same along with that petition. The learned Magistrate thought it appropriate to conduct an enquiry and directed the said Shijo T.S. to appear before the court for enquiry. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the best person to give evidence to that effect is none other than the said Shijo T.S. When the petition to condone delay was filed by the said Shijo T.S. he had to explain the delay and it was for that specific purpose that he was directed to appear before the court for enquiry. There is no case for the revision petitioner that immediately after the filing of the complaint, the said Shijo T.S. resigned from the service of the company. In fact, there is no statement at all in the revision petition regarding the date on which the said Shijo T.S. left the service of the company. It is specifically stated in the impugned order that after directing the said Shijo T.S. who filed the complaint and also the petition to condone delay to appear before the court for enquiry, opportunities were given to him repeatedly for that purpose. That fact is not at all disputed by the revision petitioner. The facts that despite such repeated directions, the said Shijo T.S. who was authorised to represent the Company in the said complaint had failed to appear before the court and he had not assigned any proper explanation for his non-appearance were also not disputed. That apart, no reason whatsoever was stated in this revision petition as to why he had failed to appear before the court despite specific directions. There is no case for the petitioner that such documents showing extensive travelling of the said Shijo T.S. are available with the company and even if so, there is no explanation as to why they were not produced before the court. The situation created in such circumstances on account of the delay cannot legally be permitted to overcome by a mere statement that he is no longer in service. Such a situation will not and cannot absolve the liability of the petitioner company to prove the aforementioned cause assigned as sufficient case for not filing the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period. As already noted, there is no case for the petitioner that they got materials to support the reason assigned by the said Shijo T.S. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act and it runs as hereunder:-

(2.) Section 142(b) as extracted above would reveal that such a complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which course of action arise under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. The proviso to section 142(b) though empowers the court to take cognizance even after the period prescribed under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138, it can be done only if the complainant satisfies that court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period. I am afraid even if the said Shijo T.S. was able to show that he was travelling extensively in connection with the employment whether that could have been a reason for satisfying the learned Magistrate to exercise the discretion under proviso to Rule 142(b). Mere statement regarding extensive travelling in connection with employment cannot be said to be a sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period. When the statute prescribes a specific period within which a complaint has to be filed, the person who is authorised to file a complaint should be diligent enough to file the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period and he cannot be permitted to take shelter under the proviso unless and until there is sufficient cause that prevented him from filing the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period. Even if undertaking extensive travelling in connection with the employment and thereby incapacitated to file the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period could be assigned as sufficient cause for the purpose of proviso to section 142(b), a vague statement to that effect that the person authorised to file the complaint unsupported by documents could not have acted upon and accepted. It is the onus of the person concerned to satisfy the court regarding the existence of sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the statutorily prescribed time. When the court called upon him to appear for an enquiry to prove the genuineness of the reason assigned in the petition for condonation of delay that person has to appear before the court and to satisfy the court regarding the existence of sufficient cause, as stated, for not making the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period. In this case, evidently, despite granting several opportunities, the concerned person failed to appear before the court or even failed to give an explanation whatsoever for his non-appearance before the court for enquiry. When that be the position, any other person who is now authorised cannot be heard to contend that the delay ought to have been condoned or may be condoned, that too, without producing any document that would support the reason assigned by the said Shijo T.S. in C.M.P. No. 2575 of 2011. It is to be noted that in the circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek for absolving it from the liability to substantiate and satisfy the existence of the reason assigned by the deponent in C.M.P. No. 2575 of 2011. In view of the facts explained above, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Magistrate had no option to dismiss the application. When the statutes make it mandatory for the person who filed the complaint to explain the delay and to satisfy the court regarding the existence of sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the statutorily prescribed period, the complaint had to discharge the said statutorily enjoined duty and that onus probandi cannot be dispensed with under any circumstance. It cannot be said to be an empty formality. The attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to get over the situation by simply making a statement that the person who was authorised to file the complaint and who had actually filed the complaint and also a petition to condone the delay, is not in service at present, cannot be a reason for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the total absence of contention regarding possession or availability of materials to substantiate or satisfy the said reason, no fruitful purpose could be served even by remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The dismissal of the complaint is only an inevitable consequence of such dismissal of the application for condoning delay. In the said circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda in C.M.P. No. 2576/2012. This revision petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.