Criminal Revision allowing petitioner to pay overdue costs and dispose private complaint on merits originally dismissed due to failure to fulfill a mandatory conditional order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Impugned order set aside; Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2010 allowed conditional on payment of Rs.1000/- within two weeks.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1100 OF 2011
DATED:12.07.2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2011, in Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2010 in C.C(SR)No.1302 of 2010 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, wherein the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed for noncompliance with the order, dated 17.02.2011, in Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2010.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner filed private complaint against the 2nd respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As there was a delay of 339 days in filing the complaint, he filed Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2010 seeking condonation of the same. By order, dated 17.02.2011, the said application was allowed, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1000/- to the District Legal Services Authority by 28.02.2011, failing which petition shall stand dismissed. As the costs were not paid, the complaint was dismissed on 28.02.2011 for non-compliance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the paternal uncle of the counsel appearing before the trial Court fell sick and died on 28.02.2011 and therefore the counsel was not available and therefore the petitioner could not contact him and that the petitioner had also noted the date of hearing incorrectly as 28.03.2011 instead of 28.02.2011 and that he went to Mangalagiri for Naturopathy treatment and returned on 23.03.2011 and in view of the non-availability of the counsel owing to his uncle’s demise he could not contact him and pay the costs in time.
5. The said ground is also pleaded in the grounds of revision. In the circumstances and in view of the reason furnished for non-compliance with the order of the Court, it is considered that the petitioner can be permitted to pay the costs and have the matter disposed of on its merits. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and consequently Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2010 stands allowed, subject to payment of the said costs of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand only) within a period of two weeks from today failing which, the impugned order shall stand unchanged.
6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
12th July, 2011.
Tsy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with a delay, could be permitted to pay costs and have the matter disposed of on merits after
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
2nd Respondent
G.V.SEETHAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
