HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5986 of 2009 Dated : 06.08.2009 Between : Vemula Shekar ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5986 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Dhananjayaa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The basic complaint of the petitioner against the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) is that the complaint was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 142 (b) of the Act and that there was neither any application for condonation of delay nor any explanation for the same nor any finding by the learned Magistrate of being satisfied about the existence of sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashing of the proceedings against him. It is seen from the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Court that it was specifically pleaded in the complaint that the complainant suffered ‘Viral Phyleria’, was under treatment from 06.12.2003 in Jayasri Clinic, Yawar Road, Jagityal, and was advised to take complete bed rest and treatment for atleast 15 days due to which he could not file the complaint before 08.12.2003, the date of expiry of 15 days from the date of service of the legal notice on the petitioner herein. The complainant, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the complaint. It is further seen from the material papers enclosed to the criminal petition that in the sworn statement recorded by the learned Magistrate also the complainant specifically requested for condonation of the delay while explaining reasons for the said delay. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant on 22.12.2003 and posting the matter for consideration to 29.12.2003, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 29.12.2003 about perusing the sworn statement of the complainant and documents on record and finding prima facie material to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken and though the learned Magistrate did not say specifically about his being satisfied about the existence of the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint, the same can reasonably be implied from the act of taking cognizance as the delay and the reasons for the same were specifically brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate in the complaint and sworn statement and a specific prayer was made for condonation of delay. Section 142 (b) proviso provides that if the complainant satisfied the Court about the reasons for not making a complaint within the prescribed period, the cognizance of the complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period also. Merely because the learned Magistrate did not express in specific words of being satisfied about the cause for the delay, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be invoked, which is available only in rarest of rare cases, more so, when the present petitioner appeared before the criminal Court on 03.03.2004 and had not chosen to challenge the cognizance of the offence till now. Apart from the abnormal delay in filing the petition seeking any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even on merits, the inherent jurisdiction does not appear to be justifiably invoked in the present case. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 6th August, 2009 SUR