Limitation for cheque dishonour complaints runs from initial presentation, and a defective return cannot defeat a timely filing.

For a Section 138 complaint, limitation under Section 142 is satisfied by the date of initial presentation within one month of the cause of action, not by any later re-presentation after the Magistrate returns the papers for defects. The text states that once the complaint is presented in time and received with court fee and seal, it forms part of the court record, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Criminal Rules of Practice authorising a Magistrate to return it merely for defects. A Magistrate may examine the complaint under Section 200, but cannot adopt an extra-statutory return-and-representation procedure or prejudice the complainant by leaving re-filing to discretion.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevant date for limitation is the date of initial presentation before the Magistrate or the date of re-presentation after return of the complaint for defects, and whether the Magistrate has power to return such a complaint without fixing time for re-presentation.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 is required by Section 142 to be made within one month of the cause of action, and the emphasis of the provision is on the making or presentation of the complaint, not on the date on which cognizance is taken or process is issued. The complaint, once presented within time and received by the court with court-fee and seal, becomes part of the court record; there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Criminal Rules of Practice authorising the Magistrate to return a complaint merely because defects are noticed. The Magistrate may examine the complaint after cognizance under Section 200 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, but cannot adopt an extra-statutory course of returning the papers and leaving re-presentation to the complainant's discretion. Where the initial presentation was within limitation, the complainant cannot be prejudiced by the court's unauthorised return of the papers without fixing a return date.

Conclusion: The relevant date is the date of initial presentation, and a complaint filed within limitation remains valid notwithstanding later re-presentation after return by the Magistrate; the accused cannot take advantage of the court's act to defeat limitation.

---