The other plea relating to delay of 62 days and taking of cognizance without issuing notice to dispense with such delay is however found to have substance. The relevant provision Under Section 142 of the Act requires making of the complaint within one month of cause of action arising on account of non-compliance with the demand in the notice to make payment within 15 days. According to Appellant the notice was dated 03.02.2006 alleging non-payment of two cheques each for Rs. 1,80,000/-. Allegedly the Appellant had sent a reply denying his liability through a reply dated 20.02.2006. The complaint was filed on 24.05.2006. Prima facie, in view of aforesaid dates the complaint was beyond the permissible period. No doubt the court has been empowered to take cognizance even after the prescribed period but only if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within the prescribed period. Learned senior Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of P.K. Choudhury v. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) MANU/SC/7321/2008 : (2008) 13 SCC 229 to support his submission that for condoning delay in filing complaint beyond the period of limitation, natural justice warrants notice to the accused so as to grant him an opportunity to show that the delay should not be condoned.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8058 of 2012) and Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8092 of 2012) Decided On: 11.04.2016
K.S. Joseph Vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. Citation:AIR 2016 SC 2149