Dismissed¶¶52

The Managing Director v. Sri.Sanjay S/O Shivaji Singare

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025CRL.A/100098/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 206 days; Section 138 N.I. Act complaint; return of complaint by JMFC Court Dharur on 07.05.2016; re-presentation on 28.11.2016; Section 142(B) N.I. Act; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; Section 473 Cr.P.C.; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. appeal by complainant; PCR No.487/16 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mudhol; plea of advocate not informing complainant rejected; affidavit of PW.1 alone insufficient; Gem Sugars Limited v. Sanjay Singare; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Apart from the affidavit evidence of PW.1, no other documents were produced in support of the case for condonation of delay; accordingly, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. ¶¶51

The Managing Director Vs Sri.Sanjay S/O Shivaji Singare — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100098 OF 2019 (A-)

¶5

between:

¶6

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, GEM SUGARS LIMITED, KUNDARGI, BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. DAYANAND S/O. KRISHANA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT CANE OFFICER, GEM SUGARS LIMITED, KUNDARGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶12

SRI. SANJAY S/O. SHIVAJI SINGARE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CONTRACTOR, RESIDENT OF DHARUR, TQ: DHARUR, DIST: BEED, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-431124.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PC NO.487/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 DISMISSING THE IA SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 206 DAYS AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING PC NO.487/2016 OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 N.I. ACT EFFECTIVELY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC MUDHOL AND ETC.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The present appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ , by the complainant challenging the order dated 26.10.2018 passed in PCR No.487/16 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol² , whereunder, the application presented by the complainant under Section 142(B) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881³ , Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963⁴ and Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., has been dismissed.

¶22

The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the JMFC Court, Dharur. The same was returned vide order dated 07.05.2016 to the complainant with a direction to file the complaint within 30 days before the Jurisdictional Court. Subsequently, the complaint was presented on 28.11.2016 along with the application to condone the delay of 206 days. The Trial Court, vide order dated

¶23

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’

¶24

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’

¶25

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’

¶26

4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1963’

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

26.10.2018, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

¶31

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel Sri.K.S. Patil appearing for the appellant/complainant that returning of the complaint by the JMFC Court, Dharur, was not informed by the counsel appearing for the complainant, and hence there has been a delay, which is required to be condoned.

¶32

It is forthcoming that the Trial Court while considering the application for condonation of delay, has held as follows:

¶33

“Initially the complainant has presented this complaint before learned JMFC Court, Dharur and the learned court has returned the compliant to the complainant on 07.05.2016 for its proper presentation within 30 days. But the complainant has presented this compliant before this court on 28.11.2016 i.e., after lapse of 06 months 21 days. The complainant in his affidavit has stated that his advocate has not informed the orders passed by learned JMFC court, Dharur but he came to know about the said orders only on 22.11.2016. On these grounds, he has requested the court to condone the delay in filing this complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

On perusal of entire records, it does not discloses that the complainant has taken back the compliant from JMFC court Dharur on 24-11-2016 as stated in his affidavit. He has not produced any documents before the court to establish that the learned court has returned the entire records only on 24-11-2016 and not earlier to it. He has made allegations against his advocate who was appearing before Dharur court by stating that the learned counsel has not informed about the orders passed on 07-05-2016. When the complainant has presented the compliant before the learned court, then he must be diligent enough to know about the status of his case but he cannot make allegations against his advocate for presenting the compliant with a delay of 206 days. The complainant except his chief affidavit, has not produced any documentary evidence to seek for condoning the delay of 206 days. Accordingly the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to condone the delay of 206 days for presenting the complaint. The complainant has not satisfactorily explained each day delay in approaching the court. Accordingly the complainant has not made out any grounds to condone the delay of 206 days in presenting this compliant. Hence, I pass following orders.

¶38

ORDERS

¶39

A. I.A. filed U/Sec. 142(B) of the N.I. Act, Sec.5 of Limitation act and Sec.473 of Cr.PC by the complainant

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

is dismissed. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶44

B. No order to cost.

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

It is pertinent to note that, along with the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit of the representative of the complainant. Ex.P1 is a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 07.09.2009, authorizing PW.1 to represent the complainant and Ex.P2 is extract of Minutes of Meeting of the complainant held on 20.07.2009, with regard to authorization of representative of the complainant.

¶47

The case of the complainant is that the order was passed by the JMFC Court dated 07.05.2016, but the same shall not informed by their advocate, and that only on 22.11.2016, the same came to the knowledge of the complainant. The Trial Court, while noticing the case of the complainant, has recorded a finding that although it is been stated that the advocate representing the complainant had not informed regarding the order of the JMFC Court, Dharur, to present the complaint before the appropriate Court, there is no

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10309 CRL.A No. 100098 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

material placed by the complainant on record that he had enquired with their advocate regarding the status of the case.

¶51

It is further pertinent to note that apart from the affidavit evidence of PW.1, no other documents have been produced in support of its case seeking for condonation of delay. In view of the aforementioned, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application.

¶52

The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶53

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶54

PMP

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

The Managing Director v. Sri.Sanjay S/O Shivaji Singare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sri.Sanjay S/O Shivaji Singare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamsab S/O Maulasab Nadaf Since Deceased by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raju Bhalachandra Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Shri Sunil Vishnu Naik Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

The Commissioner of Central Exices, Vs M/S Unimental Ispat Limited

Shri. Ramesh Babugouda Patil Vs Shri.Jinnappa Devandra Jayakkanavar

Smt.Meenaxi Narashima Mavarkar Vs Ganapati Thaleppa Sanadi