TULSIRAM NARWARIYA Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 3rd of February, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 325/06 whereby the order dated 6th October, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been affirmed.

(2.) A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act") filed by the petitioner against the respondent was accompanied with an application under section 142(b) of the Act for condonation of the delay of 28 days in filing the complaint. The delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner being the only son of his father could not file the complaint in time as his father had suffered a fracture for which a medical certificate was also annexed with the condonation application. The delay in filing the complaint was of 28 days. The trial Court as well as Revisional Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation holding that the petitioner has failed to explain delay of each day in filing the complaint. In view of the Revisional Court, the petitioner was required to explain the delay of each and every day till the date of filing of complaint. This view of the trial Court as well as of the Revisional Court is oppose to law. Law on this aspect is well settled that litigant is not required to explain delay of each and every day; it is sufficient for him if he gives sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal or application before Court. Reliance in support of this view is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353.

(3.) Section 142(b) of the Act empowers the Court before which complaint under section 138 of the Act is filed to entertain the complaint even after expiry of limitation period of thirty days, in case the complainant shows sufficient cause for such delay.