MANAV SHARMA Vs. UMASHANKAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012, whereby the criminal revision of the petitioner against the order dated 19.07.2011 is dismissed.

(2.) The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The said complaint was filed on 18.07.2005, whereas the last date of limitation was 17.07.2005. The court below took cognizance on the said complaint and issued notices to the other side. Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant filed similar complaints which were barred by time. His similar complaint registered as Criminal Case No.2784/2011 was dismissed by court below on 25.4.2011. On dismissal of similar complaint, the complainant became vigilant and filed an application under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said application was allowed by the court below and delay of one day was condoned by order dated 19.07.2011. This order was called in question in Criminal Revision No.336/2011 which was decided on 24.01.2012. Shri Rajesh Shukla advanced singular contention by placing reliance on Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that complaint could have been entertained and cognizance could have been taken provided complainant satisfied the court at that stage that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed time. It is urged that when complaint was preferred and cognizance was taken, there was no application for condonation of delay. Hence, cognizance could not have been taken. The said application cannot be entertained at the fag end of trial. The revisional court has erred in not considering the aforesaid statutory provision.

(3.) Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand submits that the order by which cognizance was taken was not challenged. Thus, the said order has attained finality. The Court below has not committed any error which warrants interference by this Court. He submits that the first revision of the petitioner has already been dismissed. This is another revision by the petitioner under the garb of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is not maintainable. Shri H.K. Shukla, relied on (R.K. Chawla and another Vs. M/s Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another, 2006 CrLJ 193).