MALARVIZHY Vs. A.T.VENKIDACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respective orders under challenge in these 2 revision petitions are those at Anx-IV whereby the trial court has condoned the delay in re-presenting the complaints. The revision petitioners in these 2 revision petitions are the accused in S.T.No.985/2017 and S.T.No.984/2017 both on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. Those complaints have been instituted by the 1st respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act.

(2.) Heard Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing for R-1 complainant and the learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

(3.) In the matter arising in Crl.R.P.No.675/2017, the 1st respondent had filed the complaint on 3.10.2013. In terms of the judgment dated 1.8.2014 rendered by the Apex Court in Dasarath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, the said complaint was returned by the trial court to the complainant for re-presentation before the proper court as the drawee bank was situated at Pollachi. The complainant ought to have re- presented the complaint before the proper court within 30 days. It is the case of the petitioner that consequent to the return of the complaint he had entrusted the complaint with an Advocate in Pollachi for re- presenting the same before the Magistrate Court at Pollachi to prosecute the case further. That he had again made enquiries with his lawyer engaged at Pollachi about the re-presentation of the case and the lawyer has assured that he has taken steps to re-present the complaint. Later, amendments were brought to the provisions in the Negotiable Insruments Act, whereby Secs.142(2) and Sec.142A were newly introduced with effect from 15.6.2015. So by the operation of the amended provisions in the N.I.Act, such pending complaints which were re-presented before 15.6.2015 stood transferred to the original court. However, only then the petitioner came to know that his lawyer engaged at Pollachi had not filed the complaint in that court and he had taken back the complaint from his counsel at Pollachi and he had re- presented the same before the original Magistrate Court at Chittur on 1.3.2016. The petitioner had filed application to condone the delay in that regard, which was allowed as per the impugned Anx-IV order dated 22.4.2017, after hearing both sides. The facts in Crl.R.P.No.672/2017 are also broadly similar. The learned Magistrate had condoned the delay in both the cases after hearing both sides and has taken cognizance in both the cases and have issued summons to the accused and both the matters are posted for appearance of the accused. The delay has been condoned as per Anx-IV order dated 22.4.2017 passed in both these cases.