Court Cases 689 , submitted that a case for dishonour of cheque under section 138 of the N.I Act was filed on 20.4.2001. Subsequently, an application to amend the complaint petition was filed by the complainant for adding offence under section 420 of IPC which was allowed on 14.8.2001. The accused filed an application for discharge on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation but the application was dismissed. The revisional application filed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as criminal writ petitions were dismissed. The accused preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where a question arose whether the proviso appended to section 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, inserted by the amendment Act of 2002, is retrospective in operation. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delayed complaint should not have been allowed. In the said appeal it was further held that, “Ex facie, it was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed. No application for condonation of delay was otherwise maintainable. The provisions of the Act being special in nature, in terms thereof the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Act was limited to the period of thirty days in terms of the proviso appended thereto. Parliament only with a view to obviate the aforementioned difficulties on the part of the complainant inserted proviso to clause (b) of section 142 of the Act in 2002. It confers a jurisdiction upon the court to condone the delay. It is, therefore, a substantive provision and not a
