IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2011 Marshal Construction Unit and others ……… Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents. Ms. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent No. 1. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment: 10.03.2011 BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) It seems that the applicants are seeking to take advantage of their own wrong. There is no dispute that the acknowledgment due card in respect of the postal packet, containing the notice, sent to them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter refer to as, “the said Act”), was received by them and they or somebody on their behalf duly acknowledged the same in writing. However, the date of the said acknowledgment was not mentioned. In the acknowledgment due card, there is no place where the postal authority can incorporate the date of acknowledgment. The acknowledgment due card was received back on 25th May. 2. There is nothing on record, nor the applicants have tried to bring on record anything, even by summoning the postal authorities, to establish that the acknowledgment due card was received on any day before 25th May. When the acknowledgment due card did not contain an endorsement as to the date of making acknowledgment of receipt of the postal packet, then the date of receipt thereof must be deemed to be the date when the sender comes to know that the postal packet has been served. In such circumstances, there was no delay. However, in the fairness of the things, the senders had pleaded in application filed by them under proviso to Section 142 (b) of the said Act that since they received the acknowledgment due card on 25th May and since the postal packet was posted on 15th May, the postal packet must have had been served in between 17th May and 24th May and, accordingly, prayed for condonation 2 of delay in filing their application under Section 138 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate, having had allowed the application, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope of interference and, accordingly, the application is dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 10.03.2011 Amit