5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court reveals that, if the statutory notice is sent after the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the return of the cheque from the bank, the complaint itself is not maintainable and the said delay cannot be condoned u/s 142(b) of the Act. Further, the complaint has to be filed before the trial court within one month after the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, however, the petitioner has filed the complaint along with delay petition. For the delay, though the petitioner has averred that he was under ailment and had taken treatment in the out of station, however, he has not even averred under what ailment he was affected by and where he was under treatment and in order establish the same, no materials has been produced before the trial court. It is pertinent to note that, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period, the cognizance of the complaint may be taken by the court as per section 142(b) of the Act. However, in the present case, the complainant has failed to satisfy the sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the prescribed period, thereby the trial court dismissed the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner, which cannot said to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary. Hence, this court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 4
