The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed for granting bail in a case registered against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court observed that the Learned Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and thereafter, dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. However, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, which is not permissible.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner filed a complaint for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. He also filed an application under Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act for condonation of the delay in filing the complaint. The notice was issued to the respondent/proposed accused, however, none appeared. A notice was issued to the complainant through a Special Power of Attorney and his learned counsel returnable for 01.04.2021. The complainant was unserved for want of the correct address. His Special Power of Attorney-Kapil Dev was also unserved as he was stated to be residing in Shimla. He was informed telephonically as per the report. The learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and pending applications were also ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present revision has been filed.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution during the COVID-19 pandemic when the Corona curfew was imposed. No proper service of the petitioner was effected. Hence, the petitioner or his Special Power of Attorney was unable to appear before the Court. The service of the counsel is not equivalent to the service of the party. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the order passed by the Learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.

Observations of the Court:

The Court noted that an application for condonation of delay was pending for consideration. Learned Trial Court dismissed the main complaint as well as, the pending application.

The Court observed that when the complaint was not listed, the same could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and thereafter, dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. However, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, which is not permissible.

The decision of the Court:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, allowing the petition, held that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution.

Case Title: Sushil Kumar v Sheesham Chauhan

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Case no.: Cr. Revision No. 258 of 2021

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Pathania

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Deepak