This criminal revision application challenged the rejection of the accused's plea that the cheque dishonour case was filed beyond the limitation period. The High Court upheld the lower court's calculation of the limitation timeline.
Revisional application dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 116 of 2021
AZIJUL MONDAL
| STATE OF WE | Vs. ST BENGAL & ANR. |
|
|---|---|---|
| For the PetitionerS | : Mr. |
Ibrahim Shaikh |
| Heard on: | : 17th |
MARCH 2021 |
| Judgment on : | : 17th |
MARCH 2021 |
The Court:
This is an application challenging an order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Complaint Case No. 2227 of 2017, thereby rejecting the prayer of the accused that the case was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act given by the complainant was received by the accused on 29.07.2017. But, the petition of complaint was filed on 13.09.2017. An accused has to make payment within fifteen days of service of notice. Therefore, the payment was required to be made by 14th October. If thirty days was calculated from that date, it will fall on 11th November.
2
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.
Learned Magistrate has done the calculation regarding the time within which the petition of complainant was to be filed. He had followed the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Saketh Indian Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Meena Securities Ltd., reported in 1991 Cr.L.J 1822.
I find no error or illegality in the calculation done by the learned Magistrate. According to him, the complaint has to be filed within 14.09.2017. The petition of complaint was quite rightly filed a day before.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed .
However, there shall be any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the accused's prayer that the criminal complaint was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.
Whether the calculation of time for filing the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was legally correct.
Azijul Mondal
State of West Bengal
ST Bengal & Ors.
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
