SUDHA SACHDEVA Vs. TASK BPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioners- accused, challenging herein summoning order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure- P-l) and order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure-P-15), vide which the application moved by the petitioners-accused for dismissal of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by re spondent-complainant on the ground that the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation as provided under Section 142 of the Act, has been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners-accused contends that the period of limitation provided under Section 138 of the Act having been expired and the complaint having been filed beyond the period of one month of the date Criminal Misc. No. M-22999 of 2009 . On which the cause of action arose under Clause 'c' of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and, thus, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was not maintainable and deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent, who is complainant, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act that he is having dealership of Digital Signatures and the petitioners-accused had purchased the same for their clients from the respondent-complainant, vide various invoices duly confirmed by them. In consideration of the said purchases, the petitioners-accused had made payment to respondent- complainant through cheque No. 43688, dated 09.02.2007 for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in discharge of their liability for payment of the said purchases. The petitioners-accused promised that the said cheque will be duly honoured on presentation with the Bank. On such assurance given by the petitioners- accused, respondent-complainant pre sented the cheque for collection to its Banker, but the same was dis-honoured time and again. The original cheque and the dis-honoured memo were Exhibits P.I to P.4. The respondent- complainant issued a legal notice dated 02.05.2007 to the petitioners- accused by registered post on 05.05.2007, which was received by petitioners-accused on 10.05.2007. Despite receipt of legal notice, the petitioners-accused failed to make the payment of amount of cheque to respondent-complainant. The limitation for filing the complaint commenced from 25.05.2007, however, the complaint was filed on 02.07.2007. On this basis, an objection was taken by the petitioners-accused that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 142 of the Act as the period of limitation expired on 25.05.2007 and, therefore, the period of limitation for filing the complaint commenced from the said date, which period expired on 25.06.2007, whereas the complaint has been filed on 02.07.2007, which is admitted position and, therefore, orders impugned herein i.e. summoning order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure-P-1) and order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure-P-15), rejecting the application of petitioners- accused, wherein they had prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 142 of the Act, cannot be sustained.

(3.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact in the present case that the period of limitation for filing the complaint was upto 26.06.2007 as the cause of action would accrue to the respondent-complainant on 26.05.2007. It is also not in dispute that as per notification dated 22.05.2007 issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, that all the Courts of Subordinate Judges shall remain closed for civil work from 16.06.2007 to 15.07.2007 and for criminal work from 16.06.2007 to 30.06.2007. According to this notification, the Courts of the Subordinate Judges remained closed for summer vacations, however, what was permitted was urgent criminal matters and bail matters, which were to be entertained by the Duty Magistrate during summer vacations. 1st July, 2007 was Sunday and the complaint was filed on the re-opening of criminal courts i.e. on 02.07.2007. This clearly shows and gives a reasonable expla- nation for not filing the complaint by the complainant within the period as has been prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Act. There was, thus, sufficient cause for the respondent-complainant for not making the complaint within such period as has been provided under Section 142(b) of the Act. The Trial Court has taken that fact into consideration and had held that sufficient cause has been shown by the respondent-complainant for not filing the complaint as per period prescribed under Section 142 of the Act. If the respondent-complainant is able to satisfy the Court with regard to sufficiency of cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed, separate application for the said- purpose is not required to be followed. In view of the undisputed position with regard to issuance of the notification dated 22.05.2007 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioners-accused, cannot be accepted. The Trial Court had rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioners-accused for dismissal of the complaint as being not maintainable. There can be no dispute with regard to contention raised by counsel for the petitioners-accused that the Limitation Act will have no application to the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in view of the amendment in Section 142(b) in the year, 2002, conferring discretionary powers on Courts to condone the delay. When substantive law is amended giving powers to the Courts to condone the delay, where the complaint was filed after expiry of period of limitation, it would prevail over the procedural law. That being so and further as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reliance whereof has been placed by counsel for the petitioners-accused, i.e. Subodh S. Salaskar (supra), the Limitation Act would have no application to the proceedings initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The discretionary powers conferred on the Courts for condonation of delay having been exercised by the Trial Court in the light of its satisfaction on the basis of notification issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, which notification has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioners-accused, such exercise of discretion by the Trial Court wherein the explanation and justification given by the respondent-complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period prescribed, cannot be faulted with.