The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, consequent to the dismissal of an application to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the complaint. The complainant is a private limited company, represented by its Assistant Manager. The complaint was in fact filed by the power of attorney holder authorised by the company to conduct prosecution. Explaining the reason for delay, the power of attorney holder filed affidavit stating that the complaint could not be presented in time by him because he was laid up due to jaundice.
2. On a technical approach to the matter, the trial court (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram) dismissed the application to condone delay saying that the company could have authorised somebody else to conduct prosecution. When a delayed complaint is brought by a particular person, and when he explains the delay, Crl.R.P No.1159 of 2014 2 the Court will have to look into the genuineness of the reason for delay. Observing that the company could have authorised somebody else is not the proper approach. The authorised power of attorney has well explained the delay in his affidavit, and the delay is of only 25 days. I find, in the interest of justice, that the application to condone delay can be allowed in revision, when the reason for delay stands well explained in the affidavit, and the complaint will have to proceed as provided under the law.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court in C.M.P No.458/2014 is hereby set aside, and the delay of 25 days in filing the complaint is condoned in revision. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the revision petitioner is remitted to the court below for appropriate procedure, according to law, as prescribed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner will appear in the trial court on 29.7.2014.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab