Writing 'Allowed' On Margin Of Delay Condonation Plea Without Reasons Is Not A Valid Judicial Order: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that merely writing “Allowed” on the margin of an application seeking condonation of delay, without recording any reasons or drawing an order-sheet, cannot be treated as a valid judicial order. The Court consequently quashed the cognisance order and all consequential proceedings in a cheque dishonour complaint filed after a delay of 118 days.A Single Judge...
The Patna High Court has held that merely writing “Allowed” on the margin of an application seeking condonation of delay, without recording any reasons or drawing an order-sheet, cannot be treated as a valid judicial order. The Court consequently quashed the cognisance order and all consequential proceedings in a cheque dishonour complaint filed after a delay of 118 days.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a petition challenging the order dated August 24, 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna, taking cognisance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and issuing summons to the petitioners.
The complaint had been filed by the Director of M/s Career Solutions Pvt. Ltd. According to the complainant, the company had entered into an agreement with the accused for promotion of their colleges and for securing admissions. It was alleged that the complainant-company incurred expenses of ₹67.41 lakh and that four cheques issued towards discharge of this liability were dishonoured with the endorsement that the account was “blocked”.
The cheques were presented again but were returned with the same remark. A legal notice was thereafter issued, followed by a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 138 of the NI Act.
The petitioners disputed the allegations and contended, among other things, that the cheques had been issued by a registered society and not by the college arrayed as an accused. They also alleged that substantial advance payments had already been made to the complainant and that the bills relied upon in the complaint were false and fabricated.
The High Court, however, confined its examination to whether the Magistrate had validly condoned the delay of 118 days in filing the complaint. The Court noted that after the complainant and inquiry witnesses were examined, a petition seeking condonation of delay was filed on August 12, 2016. The record was directed to be placed on August 17, but no order-sheet was drawn on that date. Cognisance was thereafter taken on August 24.
On examining the record, the Court found that the Magistrate had only written “Allowed”, along with initials and the date, on the left margin of the condonation petition. The Court observed:
“Merely mentioning 'Allowed' with initial and date in the left margin of petition cannot be treated as any order, where in actual no order-sheet on that date was drawn.”
It further held:
“The delay of 118 days was condoned without assigning any reason, dealing with sufficient cause to prevent complainant to file complaint within the statutory period as available in terms of said Act. In fact, there is no order.”
The Bench held that the delay had been condoned in a mechanical and casual manner, without recording satisfaction that the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the complaint within limitation.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the cognisance order dated August 24, 2016 and all consequential proceedings against both petitioners.
Case Title: Surya World College of Engineering and Technology v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 610 of 2019
Appearance: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior Advocate, Ms. Kanupriya, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Ms. Aastha Prakash for the Petitioners. Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP, for the State. Mr. Kumar Ravish for the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.