Woman’s Acquittal In ₹1.2 Lakh Cheque Case Stands After Madras HC Finds Complaint Was Filed Late Without A Delay-Condonation Plea

The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed ₹1,20,000 on 20 December 2006 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The demand notice was returned “intimation delivered, unclaimed” on 12 April 2007, and the complaint was filed on 31 May 2007.

The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the conviction and acquitted her.

The complainant appealed against the acquittal.

The respondent argued, among other things, that the complaint was filed out of time without an application to condone delay and that the cheque had been given as security for her husband’s loan from KPS Finance.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes dishonour of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt or liability an offence, subject to the statutory notice and payment requirements.

Sections 118(a) and 139 provide presumptions in favour of consideration and that the cheque was received towards a debt or liability; the accused may rebut them by raising a probable defence.

Under Section 142(1)(b), a complaint must be filed within the prescribed period, though the court may take cognizance of a delayed complaint if sufficient cause is shown; the judgment, relying on S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya, states that condonation must precede cognizance.

Under K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, an unclaimed notice sent to the correct address may be presumed served, and the unclaimed date may be used to reckon the statutory period.

The judgment also reiterates that an acquittal should not be disturbed where the appellate court’s view is sustainable and a view favourable to the accused is available.

The Court held that the notice was returned unclaimed on 12 April 2007 and, applying K. Bhaskaran, reckoned the relevant period from that date.

It concluded that the complaint, filed on 31 May 2007, was delayed by four days and that no application to condone the delay had been filed; it therefore found the complaint legally defective and the cognizance bad.

The Court also considered the defence that the respondent was on night duty in Coimbatore on the alleged date of borrowing and that her signed cheque had been given as security for her husband’s loan from KPS Finance.

It found that this defence raised a probable alternative explanation for the cheque, shifting the burden to the complainant, who had not produced evidence of the mode or source of the alleged ₹1,20,000 payment.

These grounds supported the acquittal.

It held that the delayed complaint, absent an application and order condoning delay, could not sustain the prosecution; it also found no basis to interfere with the first appellate court’s assessment of the defence and the evidence.

The acquittal in C.A. No. 50 of 2012 was confirmed.