THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8876 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 are accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) in CC.No.220 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chilakaluripet. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant was taken cognizance by the lower Court for the above offence and summonses were issued to the accused for their appearance in that case. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the complaint is barred by limitation and that therefore, the lower Court should not have entertained it. It is further contended that the complaint was returned by the lower Court on 06.05.2009 and it was re-presented by the complainant in the lower Court on 07.07.2009 and therefore there is more than two months delay in re-presentation. It is further contended that presentation of the complaint in the lower Court on 04.05.2009 itself was improper as the person who signed the complaint on behalf of the complainant company did not affix seal of the company at the places wherever he signed on the complaint. It is not a pre- requisite either under Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Negotiable Instruments Act or under any other law for the time being in force that without affixing seal of the company, presentation of complaint under Section 138 of the Act is improper or at least irregular. Since it is not a legal requirement that a complaint should contain seal of the complainant company, there is no substance in this contention put forward by the petitioners’ counsel. Secondly, no time limit is given by the lower Court while returning the complaint on 06.05.2009. Therefore, there is no violation of any legal provision or order of the lower Court, in case the complaint is re-presented by the complainant on 07.07.2009. In any event, re-presentation with delay of a complaint or a plaint is a matter between the complainant/plaintiff and the Court. 3. In this case, after dishonour of the cheque, statutory notice issued by the complainant to the accused was received by the accused on 18.03.2009. Therefore, the accused have got fifteen days time for payment of the amount demanded in the notice and covered by the dishonoured cheque. The said fifteen days time after 18.03.2009 expires by 02.04.2009. Thereafter, the complaint is expected to be filed by the complainant within thirty days i.e. by 02.05.2009. 03.05.2009 is stated to be a holiday as it was Sunday. The complaint was presented in the lower Court on 04.05.2009. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even though there is a provision enabling a complainant to present the case beyond the above prescribed period, Section 142(b) of the Act contemplates that the complainant should satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period. In this case, the complaint should have been filed by 02.05.2009. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that the complainant has got time to present the complaint till 03.05.2009 and since 03.05.2009 happened to be Sunday, the complainant presented the complaint on 04.05.2009 and that therefore, presentation of the complaint is well within the period of limitation. But, on proper calculation of dates, the complaint should have been filed on or before 02.05.2009. Thus, there is delay of two days in presentation of the complaint in this case. It appears that the complainant did not calculate the period properly and the said error was also not noticed by the lower Court and office of the lower Court while making return endorsement. At the same time, it cannot be a ground for quashing the pending criminal case. As such, I intend to give another opportunity to the 2nd respondent/complainant to put forth reasons for two days delay in presenting the complaint, by filing a petition before the lower Court to condone the said delay. In such an event, the lower Court will consider the delay on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon. 4. In the result, the 2nd respondent/complainant is given opportunity to file a petition under Section 142 of the Act to condone the delay of two days in filing the complaint before the lower Court. The said petition has to be filed within four weeks from today in the lower Court. On such filing, the lower Court will decide the same giving opportunity to both the parties to submit their respective contentions. The Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:01.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8876 of 2009 Dt:01.11.2011 ysk