Jurisdictional restoration of a cheque dishonour complaint upheld after Section 142 amendment, with no prejudice caused.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was first returned on the jurisdictional position then prevailing, and later sought to be restored after the amendment to Section 142 took effect. The court found that the restoration merely enabled consideration of the complaint under the amended jurisdictional regime and did not prejudice either side. The absence of notice was not treated as fatal on the facts. The restoration order was therefore not illegal or irregular, and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order restoring the complaint after it had been returned for presentation before the jurisdictional court, in light of the subsequent amendment to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was illegal or irregular.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had initially been returned following the jurisdictional position then prevailing. The record showed that the complainant thereafter presented the complaint before the appropriate jurisdictional court and, after the amendment to Section 142 became operative, sought to revive the matter before the original court. The application for restoration did not cause prejudice to either side, since it only facilitated consideration of the complaint under the amended jurisdictional regime. The absence of notice was not treated as vitiating the order in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The restoration order was not illegal or irregular, and the challenge to it failed.

---