1. The first proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 709/2014, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. The second proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 712/2014, which is pending in the same Court. The third proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 710/2014, which is pending in the same Court. The last proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 13 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 711/2014, which is also pending in the same Court.

2. The main applications are filed for condonation of delay caused in filing complaints for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In delay condonation applications, the accused have produced envelops in which purportedly statutory notices under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act were sent by the complainant to the accused persons. Those envelops are taken in custody by the Court as it is the contention of the accused that those envelops did not contain anything and so, no statutory notices were given by the complainant before filing of the proceedings. When the delay condonation applications came for hearing, aforesaid applications were moved before the Court to open the envelops to ascertain as to whether the statutory notices were present in the envelop. Say of the present respondent, original complainant was sought and the learned Magistrate has made order to open the envelops as Magistrate wants to see the contents of the envelops for deciding the delay condonation applications.

3. The learned counsel for applicants of the present proceedings, original complainant submitted that at present only the delay condonation applications are to be decided and for that there is no need to see the contents of the envelops. He submitted that considering the contention that there was no statutory notice in the envelop, will amount to touching the merits of the matter and that is not permissible at the time of taking cognizance of the matter.

4. It is true that at initial stage only prima facie case is required to be made out by the complainant. However, in a case filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there are some statutory requirements which need to be complied with for taking cognizance of the matter. If there is no contention in the complaint that statutory notice was sent to accused, the Court can refuse to take cognizance of the matter. The present contention is similar contention as the applicants of delay condonation applications, accused want to show that statutory notices were actually not sent in the envelops. Those envelops were not opened by the accused and they are produced in the Court, according to the accused, in the same condition in which they were delivered to them.

5. For getting the relief of condonation of delay, the applicant is expected to show that there was 'sufficient case' for not filing the proceeding within the period of limitation. This Court had occasion to consider the requirements which need to be satisfied for condonation of delay in a proceeding bearing Second Appeal No. 198/2013 decided at this Bench on 14.3.2014 [Chandrakant s/o. Laxman Kulbhaiyya and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.]. This Court has made observations for that purpose at para No. 11 to 16 and the observations are are as under :-

"11. Section 5 of the Limitation Act runs as under :-

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribe period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.-- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was mi