Strict limitation for cheque-dishonour cognizance and absence of cheating ingredients made the complaint unsustainable.

Cognizance of a cheque-dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred where the complaint was filed beyond the one-month statutory period after the cause of action arose, and no application for condonation or showing of sufficient cause was made under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b). The special limitation scheme under the Act had to be applied strictly, so cognizance under Section 138 was unsustainable. The complaint also did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, particularly any premeditated intention to defraud, so cognizance of that offence was not sustainable. The cognizance order was set aside and the matter remitted for limited consideration of delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation under Section 142 of that Act; (ii) whether cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the materials in the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation under Section 142 of that Act.

Analysis: The complaint was filed after expiry of one month from the date on which the cause of action arose upon failure to pay within fifteen days of receipt of the demand notice. No application was made seeking leave or showing sufficient cause for delay under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b). The special limitation under the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to prevail, and the court below could not take cognizance dehors that statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation and was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the materials in the complaint.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations of cheque dishonour and breach of trust, but not the essential ingredients of cheating, including a premeditated intention to defraud. On the pleaded facts, no material existed to support invocation of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the addition of that offence was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for limited consideration of delay under the statutory proviso, with the revision petition being allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a distinct limitation regime for taking cognizance, that regime must be followed strictly, and a separate charge of cheating cannot be sustained unless the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of that offence.

---