Limitation objection under Section 138 complaint rejected where delay was explained in the complaint and supported by medical material.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not held barred by limitation merely because no separate application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 142. The Court noted that the complaint was filed after the amendment introducing the proviso to Section 142(b), which allows cognizance beyond the prescribed period where sufficient cause for delay is shown. Since the complaint itself explained the delay and was supported by medical material, a separate application under the Limitation Act was not mandatory. The earlier precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished as relating to the pre-amendment position. The limitation objection was rejected and the complaint was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation for want of a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 142 of that Act.

Analysis: The complaint was filed after the amendment introducing the proviso to Section 142(b), which empowers the Court to take cognizance after the prescribed period if sufficient cause for delay is shown. The complaint itself contained an explanation for the delay and supported it with medical material. The earlier decision relied on by the applicant was distinguished as it concerned a period prior to the amendment, when the proviso was not available. In the present case, the Court held that a separate application under the Limitation Act was not mandatory and that the question of disputed facts could not be decided at the threshold.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation was rejected and the complaint was held maintainable; the application for quashing was dismissed.

---