ROSHAN LAL Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 355 days in filing the revision petition. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) It has been asserted that the applicant/accused has paid the cheque amount to the complainant/respondent. The complainant promised to return the cheque, but he filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The complainant kept on promising that he would withdraw the complaint, but he failed to do so. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. The accused filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 11/4/2023. The accused was not advised by his counsel to file an appeal. The police came to arrest the accused on 22/3/2024, and he f und that a case was pending against him. The accused emained under the impression that he had made a full and final payment of the cheque, and he was not serious about the c mplaint. The complainant had also assured the accused to withdraw the complaint, but he failed to do so. There is a delay of 265 days in filing the revision, which is due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant/accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned.

(3.) The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability and the applicant/accused having not come to the Court with clean hands. It was asserted in the complaint that the accused had purchased ten goats from the respondent/complainant for Rs.3,00,000.00. He issued a cheque to discharge his liability. However, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The complainant filed a complaint, and the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a compensation of Rs.3,30,000.00 to the c mplainant. The accused preferred an appeal which was decided by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) Shimla (Camp at Roh u) (learned Appellate Court) on 20/1/2023. The accused drafted the present petition on 11/4/2023 after the lapse f more than one year. He has failed to explain the delay. The complainant specifically denied that the amount was paid to him, and he had failed to return the cheque despite promises . . Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.