Unsigned written complaint under cheque dishonour law is maintainable if later verified; limitation runs from filing date.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains maintainable when filed in writing without the complainant's signature, provided it is later verified and signed before the Magistrate. The Court treated the phrase "complaint in writing" in Section 142(a) as requiring a written complaint, not a signed one, and held that the non obstante clause excludes only oral complaints and complaints by persons other than the payee or holder in due course. It also held that limitation for criminal proceedings runs from the date of filing of the complaint, not from the date of cognizance or verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when it is filed in writing without the complainant's signature but is subsequently verified and signed before the Magistrate, and whether limitation is to be computed from the date of filing of the complaint or the date of verification.

Analysis: The expression "complaint in writing" in Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was construed in the light of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which defines complaint as an allegation made orally or in writing. The Court held that the non obstante clause in Section 142(a) has a restricted operation and excludes only oral complaints and cognizance by persons other than the payee or holder in due course. It does not introduce a requirement that the written complaint must itself bear the complainant's signature. Reference was made to the procedural scheme under Sections 200 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which the Magistrate examines the complainant on oath and records a signed verification statement, as well as to the contrast between provisions of the Code that expressly require signatures and those that do not. The Court also relied on the distinction between "writing" and "signature" in the General Clauses Act, 1897. On limitation, the Court held that for purposes of criminal proceedings the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance or records verification.

Conclusion: An unsigned complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable if it is in writing and is later verified and signed before the Magistrate, and limitation is computed from the date of filing of the complaint. The appeals failed.

---