SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing State.

(2.) Petitioner has sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Complaint Case No. 686 of 2013/T.R. No. 339 of 2017 on 25/1/2017 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi where under the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted of the charge under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act primarily on the ground that complaint was prematurely filed on 21/3/2013 i.e., on the sixteenth day of the issuance of the registered legal notice on 5/3/2013.

(3.) There is a delay of 352 days in filing the instant Cr.M.P, which is sought to be condoned through I.A. No. 2660 of 2018. Petitioner has tried to make out an explanation that he is 70 years old retired person suffering from some ailment and after coming to know of the impugned judgment dtd. 25/1/2017, he obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 1/3/2017, which consumed sometime. He somehow arranged fund to engage a lawyer and thereafter filed the case with nomenclature S.L.A, which was registered as S.L.A. No. 02 of 2017. The stamp report pointed out about the incorrect nomenclature and thereafter the same was converted into Cr.M.P. vide order dtd. 15/2/2018. Thereafter another defect was pointed out by the stamp report indicating that the petition is time barred by 352 days. The delay is therefore not intentional but due to inadvertence caused by wrong nomenclature. If the date of filing of the petition on 21/3/2017 is reckoned, there is hardly any delay in filing the petition from the order dtd. 25/1/2017.