Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not bar later impleadment of an additional accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution.

Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 overrides only the requirements that a Section 138 complaint be in writing, be filed by the payee or holder in due course, and be lodged within one month of the cause of action. It does not exclude the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for other procedural steps, so Section 319 remains available to proceed against another person who appears to have committed the offence. The statutory bar under Section 142 concerns taking cognizance of the offence, not the later addition of a person as accused; accordingly, a firm may be impleaded after that period once cognizance has been validly taken.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 excludes the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for impleading an additional accused in a prosecution under Section 138; (ii) whether the firm could be impleaded as an additional accused after the expiry of one month from the date when the cause of action arose.

Issue (i): whether Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 excludes the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for impleading an additional accused in a prosecution under Section 138

Analysis: Section 142 gives overriding effect only to the requirements that a complaint under Section 138 must be in writing, must be filed by the payee or holder in due course, and must be presented within one month of the accrual of cause of action. It does not exclude the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for all other procedural matters. Section 4(2) of the Code continues to apply unless a different mode is expressly provided. The power under Section 319 of the Code to proceed against another person who appears to have committed the offence remains available, and Section 319(4) preserves the earlier cognizance taken of the offence.

Conclusion: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not excluded from operating in aid of the prosecution, and impleadment of an additional accused is legally permissible.

Issue (ii): whether the firm could be impleaded as an additional accused after the expiry of one month from the date when the cause of action arose

Analysis: The statutory bar in Section 142 relates to taking cognizance of the offence, not to the later identification or addition of persons who may be liable for that offence. Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and once cognizance has been validly taken, the court may proceed against other persons found to be involved. The stage at which the firm is added as accused therefore does not invalidate the proceedings already commenced.

Conclusion: The firm could be impleaded after the said period, and the belated addition did not affect the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the magistrate's order failed, and the prosecutions were allowed to continue with the firm added as an accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 limits only the mode and time for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 and does not bar later impleadment of another accused after cognizance has been validly taken.

---