IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 793 of 2009 Indra Mohan Singh. ……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ……… Respondents. Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder for the State / respondent No. 1. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) According to the applicant, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was received by respondent No. 2 on 1st September, 2007. Despite receipt of the notice, respondent No. 2 did not pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque. Accordingly, cause of action of the applicant, in terms of Section 138 of the said Act, accrued on 16th September, 2007. In terms of Section 142 of the said Act, cognizance on a complaint in respect of the said incident could be taken on any date on or before 16th October, 2007. The complaint was, however, filed on 26th October, 2007. In terms of the provisions of Section 142 of the said Act, it was open to the court to accept the complaint, thus filed, provided the applicant could satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the period prescribed. Applicant contended that he broke his hand and, for the treatment thereof, he went to Delhi. He stated that on 20th October, 2007 he started from Delhi. Applicant, according to the court below, therefore, failed to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the period prescribed. Aggrieved thereby, present Application has been made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The only emphasis, in the Application, is that the delay was of mere 8 days. In terms of Section 142 of the said Act, court is incompetent to take cognizance, if the complaint is filed beyond the time prescribed. Court can take cognizance on such a complaint only when the complainant has been able to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause 2 for not making the complaint within the time prescribed. In the instant case, there is utter failure on the part of the complainant to satisfy the court as to what he did after he came back from Delhi. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the court had earlier admitted the complaint. The bar under Section 142 of the said Act applies to taking of cognizance. When the court is barred from taking cognizance in the circumstances mentioned in the said Section, even if the court had admitted the application, court could not take cognizance contrary to what has been provided in the said Section. 4. The Application, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.04.2011 G