The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur, which had dismissed a petition to condone a delay of 100 days in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar ruled that rejecting the complaint on technical grounds without a full trial was improper, emphasizing that “substantial justice” requires considering the contentions of both parties.
Background of the Case
The case involves a revision petition filed by M.R.P Finance (the Petitioner) against an order dated September 23, 2021, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Tiruppur.
According to the petitioner, the respondent, M. Venkatachalam, had borrowed a loan for business requirements and issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- to discharge the liability. When presented, the cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner subsequently filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but with a delay of 100 days.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) before the trial court to condone the delay, attributing it to the sickness of their manager, K.S. Kumarraj. The respondent objected, arguing that the petitioner failed to explain the delay effectively. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the condonation petition, leading to the present Criminal Revision Case.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
Mr. C. Prabakaran, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the manager, K.S. Kumarraj, passed away on May 25, 2022, due to illness. He argued that this fact confirmed the manager’s health issues.
The counsel contended that the respondent had not denied the issuance of the cheque or his signature, and thus the statutory presumption was against him. He argued that the dismissal of the delay petition was based “only on technical grounds” and that “short-circuiting the judicial process is not proper.” He asserted that the complainant should be allowed to conduct the trial, where the respondent’s defence could be decided.
Respondent’s Arguments
Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla, the Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent, opposed the revision. He submitted that the complaint was filed with a delay in August 2016 and that the petitioner had failed to produce records showing that the manager was hospitalized or undergoing treatment at that time. He argued that the trial court had passed a “well reasoned order” finding that the petitioner had not given reasons for each day of the delay.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar reviewed the submissions and observed that the proviso to Section 142 of the N.I. Act was introduced specifically for the purpose of condoning delay in filing complaints under Section 138.
The Court observed:
“Substantial justice can be done only after considering the contention of both the petitioner/complainant and respondent/accused after full-fledged trial.”
Regarding the health of the manager, the Court noted the production of the death certificate of K.S. Kumarraj. The Court stated:
“Now it is seen that the earlier Manager, K.S.Kumarraj died and death certificate produced confirming that he was not in good health. Though the death occurred after five years, on the submissions and on the records this Court finds that K.S.Kumarraj, erstwhile Manager was not in good health.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case (CRL RC No. 1107 of 2022). The Court set aside the impugned order dated September 23, 2021, made in Crl.M.P. No. 678 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruppur.
The Court condoned the delay in filing the complaint and directed the trial court to “take the complaint on file and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.”
Additionally, the Court placed on record its appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla, the Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent, and directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to pay his remuneration.
Case Details
- Case Title: M.R.P Finance Vs. M. Venkatachalam
- Case Number: CRL RC No. 1107 of 2022
- Coram: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
