(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. 11-X/2011.
(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are 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 9.10.2009. Sole proprietor i.e. petitioner No. 2 issued cheque No. 742129 dated 10.11. 2009 drawn on account No. 30599533691 maintained with State Bank of India, Mehatpur in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Cheque was dishono-ured on 27.1.2010 by the banker of the petitioners with the remarks, "exceeds arrangements" Complainant issued notice on 4.2.2010 in compliance of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. Proprietor sought extension for payment of money on or before 15.4.2010. He waited in good faith for repayment of amount till 20.4.2010 to avoid litigation. In these circumstances, complaint was filed on 26.4.2010 after expiry of period of limitation to file complaint. 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. 11-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.