AMJAD ALI KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2022-9-2
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on September 01,2022

AMJAD ALI KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PREM CHAND VIJAY KUMAR VS. YASHPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.)Present application has been filed for quashing of order dtd. 22/8/2019, passed in Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Motihari, East Champaran by which petitioner's criminal revision has been dismissed, which was filed against order dtd. 11/7/2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IX, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Petition No. 695 of 2018, whereby and whereunder Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IX, Motihari, East Champaran has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner.
(2.)Short facts giving rise to this case is that petitioner had issued two cheques of total Rs.12.00 lacs in favour of complainant's firm which were dishonoued due to insufficiency of fund for which certificate of dishonour/return memo (Annexure 2) was issued by the bank to the complainant on 17/2/2018. Thereafter, complainant gave legal notice to the petitioner on 17/3/2018 which was acknowledged by the petitioner but he did not make payment leading to filing of Complaint Case No. C-695 of 2018 dtd. 25/4/2018 (Annexure 1) for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC read with sec. 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, complainant was examined on SA and his witnesses were also examined during course of enquiry and on the basis of deposition of complainant and his witnesses, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IX took cognizance of the offence punishable under sec. 138 of the NI Act vide order dtd. 11/7/2018. Cr. Rev. No. 291 of 2018 filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Motihari, East Champaran vide order dtd. 22/8/2019.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance dtd. 11/7/2018 as well as revisional order dtd. 22/8/2019 are bad in law and fit to be quashed for the simple reason that both the Courts failed to appreciate provisions of law provided under sec. 138 of the NI Act. He next submits that cognizance has been taken by the Court below on a time barred complaint. In the instant case, cause of action arose on 17/3/2018, whereas complaint was filed on 25/4/2018, i.e, beyond the statutory period of 30 days as per clause (c) of the proviso to sec. 138 of the NI Act. That apart, no limitation petition was filed for condoning the delay by the complainant. Court below without condoning the delay has taken cognizance and hence both orders are bad in law and fit to be quashed. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Birendra Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and another, reported in 2007(3) PLJR 390.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.