MAHADEV GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition aggrieved by order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate Negotiable Instruments Act Case No. 17 whereby court had condoned the delay in filing the complaint and had taken cognizance, was affirmed.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the complainant that in a case where the court condones delay, it has to give opportunity to accused. He placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre (1995) 1 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar De and Anr. v. M/s Prime Movers Auto Associates (p) Ltd. and Anr. 2009 (3) Crimes 524 (Cal.). Counsel for the complainant has opposed the miscellaneous petition. It is contended that there was a delay of seven days on account of demise of brother of complainant. It is also contended that petitioner has availed the remedy of revision and there being bar under Sub section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. on filing second revision by the same person misc. petition cannot not be entertained.

(3.) This court is of the considered view that under the Negotiable Instruments Act at the stage of taking of cognizance it is not necessary for the court to issue notices to the accused and hear the accused before condoning the delay in filing the complaint.