1 2025:CGHC:15031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 384 of 2024 1 - New Sharma Stones Prop. Shri Praveen Sharma Aged About 36 Years, S/o Shri Dayaram Sharma R/o Gurunanak Steel Industries Frezerpur Rajeev Gandhi Ward No. 33 Jagdalpur P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Mandal S/o Kamal Mandal R/o Orana Camp Adawal P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.03.2025 1. The complainant has filed present acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Unregistered File No. 456 of 2021 by which the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed on the count that legal notice has been sent beyond the time prescribed under the law. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.04.15 14:26:24 +0530 2 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“in short the N.I. Act”) on 24.11.2020 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar alleging that the appellant is proprietor of New Sharma Stones involved in selling of stones. The respondent/accused has purchased stones to the tune of Rs. 91,650/- and to discharge said liability he has given a cheque bearing No. 126674 dated 04.12.2019 payable at Central Bank of India, Jagdalpur. On 06.12.2019 when the appellant deposited the same in the account maintained by him in H.D.F.C. Bank, Jagdalpur in account No. 50200043151720 the same was bounced and returned to the appellant with an endorsement “dishonored due to insufficient fund”. The appellant after mutual conversation deposited the said cheque in the bank account maintained by him on 14.01.2020 and 02.03.2020 which was again dishonored. 3. The complainant has sent a legal notice through his counsel on 01.06.2020 to the accused which has been received by the respondent on 03.06.2020. Neither the respondent replied to the notice nor payment was made which has compelled the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.01.2021 has dismissed the complaint on the count that notice has not been given within 30 days as per provision of Section 138 of the N. I. Act, as such the Court cannot take cognizance over the matter and has dismissed the complaint. Being 3 aggrieved with this order the appellant has preferred this Acquittal Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that due to ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic the postal services were kept suspended and no source was available for the complainant to issue notice to the accused which has caused delay. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the difficulties faced by the litigants as not only in the State of Chhattisgarh but the entire Nation was suffering from COVID-19 Pandemic and all Court proceedings were kept in abeyance and the Hon’ble Supreme Court facing difficulty has passed various directions including the period of condonation of delay in Section 138(B) of the N. I. Act also. Thus, he would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2021. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would submit that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint. She would further submit that as per Section 130(B) of the N. I. Act there is no provision for extension of time period, as such it cannot be extended and would submit that learned trial Court has passed the impugned order, in accordance with law which does not warrant interference of this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Before considering the rival submissions, it is expedient for the Court to narrate the difficulties faced not only by the litigants but entire Judicial system, by other institutions and common people who have suffered a lot due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the nation has to declare lock- 4 down for such a long period. This difficulty suffered by the litigant and the lawyer has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has initiated suo moto cognizance and issued various directions with regard to the limitation. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed various orders with regard to extension of limitation in following cases: (i) (2020) 19 SCC 10 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 decided on 23.03.2020 wherein paragraphs 2 to 4 reads as under: “2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective courts/tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15-3-2020 till further order(s) to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. 3. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all courts/tribunals and authorities. 4. This order may be brought to the notice of all the High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate courts/tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.” 9. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order with regard to Section 138 of the N.I. Act reported in 2022 (3) SCC 117 in case of Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 with Misc. Application No. 29 of 2022 in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 is Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022 wherein paragraph 5.1 to 5.4 reads as under: “5.1. The order dated 23-3-2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 8-3-2021, 27-4-2021 and 23-9-2021, it is directed that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special 5 laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 3-10- 2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1-3-2022. 5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already condoned the period due to COVID-19 Pandemic reported in (2021) 5 SCC 452 decided on 08.03.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Section 138(B) of the N. I. Act has passed the order as under: “2.1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15-3-2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15-3-2021. 2.2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15-3-2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15-3-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 2.3. The period from 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial 6 Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 2.4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state: "Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies. provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements." 3. The suo motu writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 11. From perusal of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already extended in computing the period under Section 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribes period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, within outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay and termination of proceedings. 12. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2021 for 90 days and had held that longer period shall apply and as the complaint was filed on 24.11.2020 which is within the extended period of limitation, therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 is liable to be quashed accordingly it is quashed. 13. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication of the complaint wherein the complainant and the accused will be granted sufficient opportunity to prove his stand. 7 14. Since, the parties have already entered appearance before this Court, therefore, it is directed that the appellant and respondent shall appear before learned trial Court on 10th June, 2025 and no notice is required for appearance of the parties as the parties have already appeared before this Court. Learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the complaint within an outer limit of 1 year from the date of first appearance of the parties i.e. 10th June, 2025. 15. With aforesaid direction, the instant acquittal appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika