Premature Section 138 complaint cannot sustain cognizance where statutory payment period has not yet expired

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed before expiry of the fifteen-day payment period after service of notice is premature and not maintainable in law. The statutory cause of action arises only when the drawer fails to pay within that period, and until then no offence is complete. The Court is barred from taking cognizance of such a complaint, and the defect is not cured merely because the period expires later. On that basis, the conviction and sentence founded on the premature complaint were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed before the expiry of the fifteen-day period after service of notice is maintainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme makes service of notice and failure to pay within fifteen days an essential precondition for accrual of the offence and the cause of action. A complaint presented before expiry of that period is not merely premature but is not a complaint in the eye of law. In such a case, the Court is barred from taking cognizance, and the defect is not cured by the fact that the period may have expired by the time cognizance is considered.

Conclusion: The complaint was premature and legally incompetent, so the conviction and sentence based on it could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the conviction and sentence were set aside because the prosecution was initiated before the statutory cause of action had arisen.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 138, read with the complaint and cognizance provisions, no offence is complete and no complaint lies until the drawer fails to pay within fifteen days of service of notice.

---