Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 & 142 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Cognizance – Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a time-barred complaint before condoning delay – Order quashed. A. Statutory Scheme – Section 142(1)(b) NI Act Complaint under Section 138 NI Act must be filed within one month from the date cause of action arises under Section 138(c). Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) empowers the Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint only if sufficient cause is shown. Held: The language of the proviso is clear and mandatory: Satisfaction of the Court regarding sufficient cause must precede taking cognizance. Condonation of delay is a condition precedent, not a curable formality.

advocatemmmohan

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 & 142 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Cognizance – Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a time-barred complaint before condoning delay – Order quashed.

---

A. Statutory Scheme – Section 142(1)(b) NI Act

• Complaint under Section 138 NI Act must be filed within one month from the date cause of action arises under Section 138(c).

• Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) empowers the Court to take cognizance of a belated complaint only if sufficient cause is shown.

Held:

The language of the proviso is clear and mandatory:

Satisfaction of the Court regarding sufficient cause must precede taking cognizance.

Condonation of delay is a condition precedent, not a curable formality.

---

B. Error Committed by Magistrate

Facts:

• Complaint filed with delay of two days.

• Magistrate took cognizance on 09.10.2013.

• Delay condoned only later by order dated 30.10.2018.

Held:

1. Magistrate erred in taking cognizance before condoning delay.

2. Proceedings instituted with limitation-linked delay do not properly enter judicial consideration until delay is condoned.

3. Cognizance taken prior to condonation is contrary to statutory mandate.

4. High Court erred in treating the sequence (cognizance first, condonation later) as interchangeable.

---

C. Rejection of High Court’s “Curable Irregularity” Theory

High Court held:

• Whether delay is condoned first or cognizance taken first is immaterial.

• Irregularity stands cured once delay is condoned.

Supreme Court Held:

• This reasoning is legally flawed.

• Proviso to Section 142(1)(b) makes condonation a jurisdictional precondition.

• The act of taking cognizance without prior condonation is not a mere procedural irregularity.

---

D. Role of Complainant

• Complainant wrongly averred in complaint that it was filed within limitation.

• This misstatement contributed to the procedural defect.

---

E. Reliance on Precedent

Referred to:

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Principle reaffirmed: Cognizance under Section 138 NI Act is strictly controlled by Section 142; limitation provisions must be complied with.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

• The Court must first be satisfied that sufficient cause exists for delay.

• Only thereafter can it take cognizance of a belated complaint.

• Taking cognizance prior to condonation is legally unsustainable.

---

RESULT

• Appeal Allowed.

• High Court order set aside.

• Complaint in PCR No. 3144 of 2013 (CC No. 1439 of 2014) quashed.