https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156044 A statutory amendment conferring power to condone delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be substantive, and in the absence of express retrospective language it could not revive a complaint already time-barred; cognizance under Section 138 was therefore unsustainable. The complaint also failed to disclose cheating under Section 420 of the IPC because cheating requires deception and dishonest inducement at the inception, and the averments concerning post-dated cheques issued when the account was operative did not show such intent. An amendment adding Section 420 could not cure that defect, and the added charge was invalid. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156044 A statutory amendment conferring power to condone delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be substantive, and in the absence of express retrospective language it could not revive a complaint already time-barred; cognizance under Section 138 was therefore unsustainable. The complaint also failed to disclose cheating under Section 420 of the IPC because cheating requires deception and dishonest inducement at the inception, and the averments concerning post-dated cheques issued when the account was operative did not show such intent. An amendment adding Section 420 could not cure that defect, and the added charge was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156044