HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1695 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.06.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1492 of 2010 in C.C.No.322 of 2008 on the file of the V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dismissing the said petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Sections 251 and 258 of Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.576500 dated 18.10..2006 for an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards part-payment of the amount due to the 2nd respondent-complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘account closed’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 2nd respondent-complainant filed the complaint and the same was taken on file by the trial Court as C.C.No.322 of 2008. After service of notice, the petitioner-accused appeared before the trial Court and filed the present Crl.M.P.No.1492 of 2010 under Section 251 and 258 of Cr.P.C. seeking to dismiss the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-complainant before recording evidence as no offence is made out against the accused. However, the trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred this revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the complainant filed the complaint in question, after expiry of the statutory period, with a delay condonation petition and that the trial Court without issuing any notice to the accused straight away condoned the delay, took cognizance of the offence and numbered the complaint as C.C.No.322 of 2008 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant submits that the question of condoning the delay in a case of this nature does not arise and it is not necessary for the trial Court to issue a notice to the accused before condoning the delay and in support of the said contention he has drawn my attention to Section 142 of the N.I. Act. The facts are not in dispute. The complaint should have been filed within 30 days from the date on which the cause of action arises, but it was filed on 36th day. When Section 138 of the N.I. Act came into force by an Act 66 of 1988 with effect from 1.04.1989, a complaint shall be made within a period of one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause © of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. However, an amendment was brought by an Act 55 of 2002 with effect from 06.02.2003. As per the proviso, which was added after clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, the Court is competent to take cognizance of a complaint even after the prescribed period of 30 days/one month provided the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period. Excepting the said proviso which was inserted by Act 55 of 2002, nowhere in Section 142 of the N.I. Act, it is stated that when there is a delay, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be filed or a petition under the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act has to be filed and that a notice shall be issued to the accused. As stated supra, the time prescribed in filing the complaint is only one month, but for obvious reasons, the Legislature thought it fit to include the said proviso. In the instant case, no doubt, the said complaint was filed on 36th day and the trial Court being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay, took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as C.C.No.322 of 2008. The provisions of the Limitation Act or the principles of natural justice, in my considered view, have no application to the offence falling under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. I find no merit in the revision. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.322 of 2008 at the earliest, preferably, within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 31-01-2011 Gsn.