THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.234 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated, 25.11.2010 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.6795 of 2010 in C.C.(SR).No.7378 of 2010, whereby a petition filed under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that there are money transactions between the petitioner and the first respondent and in that connection, a cheque bearing No.684636, dated 27.02.2010, for a sum of Rs.70,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Hyderabad – CTO Ext Counter, Nampally, Hyderabad was given by the first respondent-accused to the petitioner herein and when the said cheque was presented by the petitioner with the banker, it was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the accused on 06.07.2010 calling upon him to pay the said cheque and that, after the lapse of the statutory period provided for under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint was filed. The complaint was to be filed on or before 20.08.2010, but, however, the same was filed after 56 days of the said date along with a petition to condone the said delay and as stated supra, the same was dismissed and hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. As the issue to be decided in the said Revision is between the Court and the petitioner, the usual notice to the private respondent-accused is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material papers on record. From a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the complaint should have been lodged on or before 20.08.2010, but as there was a delay of 56 days in filing the complaint, an application to condone the said delay was filed. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has come into existence only to curb the menace of issuing the cheques even without having any bank balance. The said enactment came into force by Act No.66 of 1988 with effect from 01.04.1989. As per the original provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138, provided that the complaint is made in writing by the payee within a period of one month of the date on which the cause of action arose under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, subsequently, by Act No.55 of 2002, Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was amended with effect from 06.02.2003 and a proviso has been inserted. The said proviso reads as under: - “Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.” The very purpose of inserting the said proviso to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to give liberty to the payees to present the said complaint even after the expiry of the said statutory period of 30 days. Of course, the payee shall satisfy the Court that there are sufficient grounds in not making a complaint within such period. In the instant case, the reason explained by the complainant-petitioner herein for not making a complaint within the statutory period, i.e., on or before 20.08.2010, is that as his daughter’s marriage was performed on 25.08.2010, he could not contact his advocate within the stipulated time and make the complaint within time. The same appears to be plausible. In fact, the Court below ought to have accepted the said explanation offered by the petitioner. Of course, it is the absolute discretionary power vested in the Court below and the Court below may either accept the said explanation or reject the same. However, now that this Court is satisfied with the said explanation offered by the petitioner in not filing a complaint within the stipulated period, this Court is inclined to condone the said delay. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Further, the Court below is directed to take up the complaint made by the petitioner herein as provided for under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and follow the procedure provided thereafter and decide the case, in accordance with law. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 11th February 2011 DR