R B INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against Order dated 28.2.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, HP in Criminal Revision No. 12-X/2011.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. According to the averments made in the complaint, respondent is an agriculturist by profession. He produces wheat substantially every year and also supplies the same on demand. Accused manufactures food products and has been among the complainant's regular local customers for the purchase of wheat for the last few years. Complainant supplied wheat to the to petitioner No.1 on 5.11.2009, 10.12.2009 and 10.1.2010. Sole proprietor i.e. petitioner No.2 issued cheques No. 742130, 742131 and 742132 dated 10.12.2009, 10.1.2010 and 10.2.2010, respectively, all drawn on Account No. 30599533691, in State Bank of India, Mehatpur for Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/-(total Rs.1,25,000/-), respectively. The cheques were dishonoured on 27.1.2010 (Cheuqes No. 742130 and 742131) and on 8.3.2010 (Cheque No. 742132) by the banker of the petitioners with the remarks, "exceeds arrangements". Complainant issued notice on 4.2.2010 (qua Cheques No. 742130 and 742131). Petitioner No.2 sought time to repay the amount on or before 15.4.2010. Respondent waited in good faith till 20.4.2010 and filed the complaint on 26.4.2010, i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation to file complaint. However, regarding Cheque No. 742132, which was dishonoured on 8.3.2010, notice was issued on 9.3.2010. The case was listed before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for consideration for condonation of delay in filing the complaint beyond prescribed limitation. Notice was issued to the petitioners. application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 20.11.2011. Petitioners filed criminal revision petition No. 12-X/2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Una. He dismissed the same on 28.2.2013. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has wrongly entertained a time barred complaint.