Condonation of delay in cheque-bounce complaints requires a complainant's application and sufficient cause before cognizance can stand.

A delayed private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be entertained only if the complainant applies for condonation and shows sufficient cause for not filing it within time. The proviso to Section 142 is treated as akin to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and does not permit the court to excuse delay suo motu on broad interests-of-justice grounds. Cognizance taken beyond limitation without any explanation for delay is therefore unsustainable, though the complainant may be allowed to seek condonation before the Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be condoned only on an application by the complainant showing sufficient cause, and whether cognizance taken beyond limitation without such explanation is sustainable.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in pari materia with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and differs from Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because it does not empower the Court to condone delay in the interests of justice on its own. In a delayed complaint under Section 138, the complainant must satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the complaint within time. If no explanation is offered, the Magistrate cannot suo motu excuse the delay. The inadvertent omission by the Court to notice limitation does not by itself validate cognizance, and the complainant should be afforded an opportunity to seek condonation by filing an appropriate petition before the Magistrate.

Conclusion: Cognizance taken on the delayed complaint without an application explaining the delay was unsustainable and was liable to be set aside, with liberty to the complainant to seek condonation of delay before the trial court.

---