Vinod Rathor vs Jyoti Bhushan Dubey
2021 Latest Caselaw 1028 Chatt

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                Order Sheet
                            CRMP No. 228 of 2016
                 Vinod Rathor Versus Jyoti Bhushan Dubey




9-7-2021         Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner.
                 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
           Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has
           been amended with effect from 6-2-2003 and proviso to
           clause has been inserted which gives power to learned
           Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint even after the
           period prescribed under the Act is expired, if complainant
           satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making
           a complaint within such period. He would further submit that
           the learned Magistrate has not examined the provisions and
           has dismissed the complaint by holding that the complaint
           has been filed after prescribed         period of one month,
           therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
           erroneous and the revisional Court has also committed
           illegality in doing so. He would rely upon the decision of the
           judgment of Honorable Supreme Court in case of Birendra
           Prasad Shah vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
           2019 (7) SCC 273. The issue raised in this petition requires
           consideration.
                 Heard.
                 Admit.
                 On payment of process fee within one week, issue
           notice to the respondent by ordinary mode as well as by

registered mode. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. List this case in the week commencing 23-8-2021.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju