Case Law Details
A. Seating Vs Nandini Modulars (Karnataka High Court)
Facts- The complainant was running an industry in the name of M/s. Nandini Modulars. The accused gave an undertaking to the complainant that he will discharge the amount of Rs.13,58,921/- within 15 days and also issued four cheques as security to the said loan amount in favour of the complainant. On presentation of those cheques, the same were dishonoured with an endorsement as ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, the legal notice was issued on 03.02.2017 calling upon the accused to make payment of the dishonoured cheques amount and the said notice was duly served on the accused and inspite of service of notice, the accused had not complied with the same. Hence, the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and the petitioners were secured and they did not plead guilty. Hence, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P60 and the accused not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the petitioners herein.
Hence, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court, wherein, the contention was taken that the complaint is barred by limitation and there is no application filed before the Trial Court and very initiation of the proceeding against the petitioners is erroneous and the Court also failed to take note of the material on record and committed an error in convicting the petitioners. The Appellate Court taking note of the grounds urged in the appeal, framed the points for consideration whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of the delay and whether the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court requires interference and answered Point No.1 as negative and remanded the matter to consider the same afresh by giving an opportunity to the complainant to file necessary application for condonation of delay and directed the Trial Court to decide the application first and thereafter proceed with the matter and consequently, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
Conclusion- The issue of limitation for the first time is raised before the Appellate Court and the Court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all before the Trial Court and hence I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and directing the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay and the Trial Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to consider the said application. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Court has committed an error in setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and committed an error in remanding the matter cannot be accepted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
