Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010008832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./106/2025 MILAN PALIT SON OF LATE SUKHENDRA BIKASH PALIT R/O HOUSE NO. 4, KAHILIPARA, COLONY, P.O. VINOBANAGAR, P.S. FATASIL-AMBARI GUWAHATI-34, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS RINA GHOSH AND ANR W/O KABINDRA CHANDRA DUTTA R/O HOUSE NO. 2, NO. A5, SHANKAR NAGAR BYE LANE ADAGUDAM, OPPOSITE HANUMAN MANDIR, P.O. ODALBAKRA, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, MR. N G KUNDU,R SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S BORPUJARI, AMICUS CURIAE (R-1) B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 28.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, Page No.# 2/5 learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Also heard Ms. S. Borpujari, learned Amicus Curiae. 2. Although, notice was issued and served upon the sole respondent, none appeared on her behalf. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae is appointed to represent the respondents. 3. The petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) in C.R. No. 3341/2018 dated 27.11.2024, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, in view of its finding that the complainant failed to file the complaint petition within the period prescribed u/s 142 of the N.I. Act and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. 4. According to the complaint/petitioner, the respondent/accused had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the petitioner which was dishonored and therefore, the complainant/petitioner was required to demand payment by giving a notice in writing to the accused within 30 days of receiving information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. 5. Accordingly, the complainant issue a demand notice on 26.03.2018, which is within the period mentioned in 138(b) of the N.I. Act, demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice by the accused but Page No.# 3/5 the amount remained unpaid. But there was a delay of 15 days in filing the complaint. 6. The reason for the delay in preferring the complaint was explained by the complainant as being due to medical reasons, inasmuch as the complainant/petitioner suffered from backache and was advised by a doctor to take complete bed rest from 07.05.2018 – 25.05.2018, as there was a likelihood of the condition aggravating. For this reason, the complainant/petitioner could not contact his engaged advocate to file the complaint within the period of limitation. In support of his contention, the petitioner submitted a medical certificate issued by his doctor on 26.05.2018 stating that he was under treatment and bed rest during the aforementioned period. The complainant/petitioner filed the complaint petition on 27.05.2018 i.e., within 2 days after the bed rest period ended and therefore, it is submitted that there was no inordinate delay and the actual delay, if any, was only of 15 days. 7. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Magistrate doubted the authenticity of the Doctor’s certificate because it was issued on 26.05.2018 i.e., 1 day after the expiry of the bed rest period and also took into consideration that no prescription or advice slip of the doctor was submitted by the complainant, nor did he submit any other document to show that he was Page No.# 4/5 under the treatment of the doctor who issued the certificate. 8. The certificate dated 26.05.2018 was issued immediately one day after the completion of the bed rest period. It is neither logical nor expected that a doctor would issue a certificate regarding a period of treatment before that treatment is concluded. It is quite natural that a patient would obtain such a certificate only after the treatment or bed rest is over, if it be required for some purpose or the other Prima Facie, there appears to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the certificate on that ground. At the stage of considering the prayer for condonation of delay, it is not necessary to go to deeply into the matter. Only Prima Facie satisfaction is required. Further, when such a certificate is presented, it is excessive to insist upon further documentation, particularly given that the delay was only of 15 days. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am of the view, that in the interest of justice, the impugned order requires to be interfered with. 10. Consequently, it is held that the complainant/petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay in preferring the complaint petition and accordingly, the impugned Order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court for taking a fresh decision with regard to cognizance, by considering the delay to have been Page No.# 5/5 sufficiently explained and condoned. 11. The Revision Petition stands allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant