C K MAHALINGAM Vs. R PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint has been filed on 16.2.2006 and as there was a delay of 620 days in preferring the complaint, by invoking Sec.5 of Limitation Act, a petition to condone the delay has also been filed therewith, wherein, it has been stated that though originally the complaint was filed as early as on 7.6.2004, the same was returned for want of certain corrections and on being taken back, it was misplaced in the office due to mix-up with other papers, therefore, the delay has occurred.

(2.) BY Order dated 16.2.2006, the learned Magistrate has directly taken the complaint on file, recorded the sworn statement and issued process to the accused. Questioning the correctness of the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in taking the complaint on file, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made on either side. It appears that a cheque bearing No.071679 dated 1.4.2004 was dishonoured on 2.4.2004, resulting in issuance of a legal notice dated 20.4.2004. Subsequently, a complaint has been preferred for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On a careful perusal of the complaint, I find that the date of filing of the complaint has not been stated and the Court seal reflects the date as 16.2.2006. Thus, there is no proof at all for filing the complaint on 7.6.2004. An endorsement by the learned Magistrate is not available to substantiate that the complaint filed on the earlier occasion was in fact returned for want of some corrections.