Manipur High Court
Chingangbam Gulshan Singh vs Sharungbam Bung Bung on 14 October, 2022
Item No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Crl.Rev.P. No. 27 of 2019
Chingangbam Gulshan Singh, aged about 34 years,
s/o Chingangbam Govin Singh, a resident of Khurai
Chingangbam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur - 795005.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
Sharungbam Bung Bung, aged about 34 years, s/o Sharungbam
Mahihar Singh, a resident of Wangkhei Palace Compound, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
...Respondent
B EF O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. S. Chitaranjan, Advocate
For the respondent : None appears
Date of order : 14-10-2022
ORDER
[1] The petitioner in this criminal revision petition, filed under Section
397 Cr.P.C., is the respondent in Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West. He assails the order
dated 27-09-2019 passed therein, condoning the delay in the filing of a
complaint case in relation to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
[2] Heard Mr. S. Chitaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Despite service of notice as long back as on 06-11-2019, evidenced by a
tracking report, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance before
this Court either in person or through learned counsel.
[3] The complaint case was initially filed by the respondent before the
learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East. By order dated 02-08-2019, the
learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East, condoned the delay of four days
in the presentation of the complaint case and issued summons to the
respondent therein. However, when it was brought to light by the respondent
in the complaint case, viz., the petitioner herein, that the Court did not have
territorial jurisdiction, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal East,
returned the case, vide order dated 31-08-2019, for presentation before the
competent Court. Thereupon, the complainant approached the learned
Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, and filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of
2019 seeking condonation of the delay of twenty-one days in the
presentation of the complaint case. By the order, presently under challenge,
the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, condoned the delay
straightway without even putting the respondent in the miscellaneous case,
the petitioner herein, on notice. Aggrieved thereby, he filed this revision.
[4] Mr. S. Chitaranjan, learned counsel, would contend that it was not
proper on the part of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, to
condone the delay in the presentation of the complaint case without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side. He would place reliance
on State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and others
[(1995) 1 SCC 42].
[5] In the judgment cited, the Supreme Court observed to the effect
that delay in launching prosecution could not be condoned without notice to
the respondents and behind their back. Though this observation was made
in the context of prosecution under prohibition/excise laws, it would be
equally applicable to an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Be it noted that Section 142 thereof requires a complaint in relation to an
offence punishable under Section 138 to be made within one month from
the date on which the cause of action arose, but the Court is empowered to
take cognizance of a complaint even after the prescribed period if the
complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making
a complaint within such period. Implicit in the provision is the requirement of
putting the respondent in the complaint case on notice, so that he can rebut
the claim of the complainant as to sufficient cause being made out for the
delay. Therefore, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Imphal West, was not
correct in allowing the condone delay petition straightway, without putting
the petitioner herein on notice.
[6] The criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside
the order dated 27-09-2019 passed by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate,
Imphal West, in Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of 2019. In consequence, the said
miscellaneous case shall be taken up for hearing afresh after service of
notice upon the respondent therein and after affording him an opportunity of
hearing on the delay condonation petition.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Victoria
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2022.10.14
VICTORIA 16:48:38 +05'30'
