Limitation in cheque dishonour complaints bars cognizance where delay is uncured at filing and later condonation cannot cure defect.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held time-barred because the cause of action arose on expiry of 15 days from receipt of the statutory notice, not from the complainant's later knowledge of service. As the complaint was filed beyond the Section 142 period and no condonation application accompanied it when cognizance was taken, the Magistrate lacked a proper basis to proceed. A later request for condonation during trial did not cure the initial defect, since limitation and sufficient cause had to be examined before cognizance. The appellate court therefore treated the trial as vitiated and upheld the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation and whether cognizance taken without prior condonation of delay was valid.

Analysis: The cause of action under Section 138 arises on the expiry of 15 days from receipt of the notice by the drawer, and not from the complainant's knowledge of service. The complaint was filed beyond the permissible period under Section 142, and no application for condonation accompanied the complaint at the time cognizance was taken. Condonation of delay at the later stage of trial did not cure the initial lack of jurisdiction, because the Magistrate was required to examine limitation and sufficient cause before taking cognizance. The appellate court was therefore justified in holding that the trial stood vitiated and in noticing the absence of proper service as an additional ground.

Conclusion: The complaint was time-barred, cognizance was invalid, and the acquittal was correctly upheld.

---