Sardar Satnam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for leave to appeal, the court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed six days after the deadline was time barred. The appellant failed to satisfy the proviso to Section 142(b) by showing sufficient cause for the delay, resulting in the rejection of the leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Sardar Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 2 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sardar Satnam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Misra,Om Prakash Nag Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present criminal appeal has been filed along with application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is some delay in filing the complaint case as per proviso to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881') , the Court can entertain the complaint case filed after the prescribed period, which has not been entertained in the present case and the complaint case filed by the appellant has been rejected as time barred, as such the order is against the statutory provision and is liable to be quashed.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that it is an undisputed case that there is delay in filing the complaint by the appellant and also stated that proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Act, 1881 empowers the court to entertain the complaint after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he has sufÏcient cause for not making a complaint within such period whereas in the present case, no such application was filed by the complainant and the case was rightly been rejected as time barred and hence, the present application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶8

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that that the cheque was bounced on 15.12.2017 and on 28.12.2017, alleged notice was sent by the appellant as per Section 138 of the Act, 1881 i.e. within thirty days of the information of bouncing of the cheque. As per the case of the appellant before the court below that the notice was served on the very next day i.e. on 29.12.2017 but no postal track report was enclosed with the complaint. As per Section 138 (c) of the Act, 1881, after the service of notice, if the payment is not made by the payee, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice, the complaint case is to be filed within thirty days, whereas in the present case, if it is admitted that the notice was served on 29.12.2017, fifteen days' period had expired on 13.01.2018 and from that date, the complaint was to be filed by 13.02.2018, whereas the same has been filed on 19.02.2018 with a delay of six days without assigning any reason for the same. The statutory proviso to

¶9

Section 142(1)(b) of the Act, 1881 is very clear and there is no ambiguity in the same. The proviso provides that the court can take cognizance of a complaint after the prescribed period but the condition is if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufÏcient cause for not making a complaint within such period, which is admittedly not made by the appellant before the court either by making pleading for the same or filing a separate application along with the complaint.

¶10

In view of above, this Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Magistrate, court no. 5, Lucknow passed in criminal complaint no. 1300 of 2018, under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and no good ground is made out for interference.

¶11

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.3.2022 Nitesh

¶13

Digitally signed by NITESH KUMAR TEWARY Date: 2022.03.09 16:35:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sardar Satnam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Satnam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy Home Deptt Civil Sectt and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs State through Cbi/Acb/ Lucknow

Shyam Deo Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home and Anr.

Pravesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Rubina Anjum and Others Vs State of Up Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept, of Home and Another

Dr.Chandan Kumar Vishwas and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrety. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. and Another