DEEP NARAIN Vs. SANJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.7.2010. Now a restoration application being No. 724/10 has been filed by the applicant for calling the order dated 29.7.2010 and to restore the present application to its original number.

(2.) THE grounds shown in the restoration application seem to be bona fide. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 29.7.2010 is recalled. THE criminal misc. application is restored to its original number. In view of the law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.1 the matter is liable to be heard and disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY in the present case a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (from hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by the complainant beyond a period prescribed by the statute which is given in Section 142(b) of the Act under which complaint under Section 138 of the Act has to be made within a period of one month from the date on which cause of action arose under Section 138(c). The case of the applicant is that the cause of action arose on 12.3.2007 when the notice was given under Section 138(c) of the Act. The fact that there was a delay in filing the complaint has been admitted by the complainant inasmuch as the complainant also moved a delay condonation application under Section 142 of the Act. In the summoning order, therefore, there is a patent infirmity inasmuch as before hearing the accused on the delay, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and summoning order was passed, the counsel for the appellant would argue.