S.K. Ganesan vs N.K. Kandasamy

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 420 and 421 of 2002

pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate ,Tiruchengode, and quash the same.

Today, when the above matters came up for admission, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court went into the fact

whether any prima facie case is put up on the part of the petitioner when the learned counsel would submit that the respondent Exports did not pay

for the goods as agreed upon by them, but cheated him, as a result of which, he was not able to meet the liabilities incurred by himself in the said

business transaction maintained between himself and the respondent; that his hardship went up to the extent of the insolvency proceedings initiated

against him in I.P. No. 18 of 2002 which is pending before this Court and in spite of such hardships, the respondent filed two criminal cases

respectively in C.C. Nos. 420 and 421 of 2002 both for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of the

dishonour of two cheques for insufficiency of funds.

So far as Crl.O.P. No. 3583 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner would submit that the respondent should have filed the complaint on or before

18.4.2000, but on the contrary, the complaint was presented on 30.03.2000 and was not re-presented within the period of limitation and hence

the same has become time barred.

So far as Crl.O.P. No. 3584 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner would submit that the respondent had filed the complaint on 17.4.2000,

whereas, the acknowledgment of the notice had been obtained on 28.01.2000 and thereafter, the complaint should have been filed within the time

that is permissible in law, i.e. on or before 13.3.2000 and having filed the complaint on 17.4.2000, the second case is also time barred.

So far as the factual position of the case as pleaded and brought forth during arguments is concerned, this Court cannot go into such factual

question which is the business of the trial court since that could be decided only with due opportunity for parties to be heard and in full

consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case in appreciation of the evidence placed on record. However, the legal

question such as the limitation point raked up could be very well looked into by this Court.

Regarding Crl.O.P. No. 3583 of 2003, since it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the notice of acknowledgment had been signed by him

on 3.3.2000 and thereafter, the petitioner is permitted by law to settle the dues of the bounced cheque within fifteen days that is on or before

18.3.2000 and thereafter, from the expiry of the fifteenth day, within thirty days, the respondent has got his right to file the complaint and since it is

the admitted case of the petitioner that the complaint has been filed on 30.3.2000 itself, the same is well within time since the respondent has got

time to file the complaint till 18.4.2000.

Likewise, regarding Crl.O.P. No. 3584 of 2003, factually, on verification of the records, it comes to be seen that the complaint has been filed as

early as on 9.3.2000 itself and the seal of the Court has been affixed on the face of the complaint as it has been filed on 9.3.2000 and factually it is

not correct to say that this complaint has been filed only on 17.4.2000, and therefore, this complaint cannot also be held to have been filed on

17.4.2000, as it is falsely averred on the part of the petitioner.

To clarify, it is the date on which the complaint is presented before the Court and on such presentment of the complaint, when the seal is affixed

for receipt of the complaint, which is the relevant date for computation of the period of limitation and not the date on which the complaint is

numbered and taken on file on re-presentation, etc. Therefore, it should only be mentioned that the petitioner is under the miserable misconception

of the procedures established under law and adopted in Courts and hence, both the complaints cannot at all be said to have been filed beyond time

so as to be struck down as per the provisions of the Limitation Act.

In result, for the above discussions held, since the limitation question is the only point that has been raised before this Court for proper

consideration and the same being held against the petitioner as both the complaints have been filed within time by the respondent, both the above

criminal original petitions become liable only to be dismissed and they are dismissed accordingly.

Consequently, Crl.M.P. Nos. 1241 and 1242 of 2003 are also dismissed.