Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the need for the complainant to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for not filing within the statutory period under section 138 and 142 (p_1) - It discusses that after amendment in 2002, proviso to section 142(b) allows condonation of delay and affects cognizance timing (p_1) - The court compelled the magistrate to consider the sufficiency of cause for delay before proceeding (p_1) - It notes that cognizance or process should not be issued without proper condonation of delay where required (p_1) - The decision sets aside the impugned order and directs reconsideration if sufficient cause for delay is shown (p_1) - The matter references the requirement that no court shall take cognizance unless the complaint is filed within the permitted period, unless condoned (p_1) - There is discussion of multiple judgments and how they influence whether limitation is to be considered at initiation (p_4, p_11, p_12) - The revisional application ends with direction to provide opportunity to satisfy the court for delay and then proceed legally (p_1, p_18) - The final order: revisional application allowed; interim orders vacated; complainant to appear within a fortnight (p_18)

What is the requirement for the complainant to show sufficient cause for not filing a complaint within the prescribed period under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

What is the proper procedure for taking cognizance in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act when there is a delay, including the role of condonation of delay under the proviso to section 142(b)?

What are the consequences if cognizance is taken without considering a pending application for condonation of delay under the proviso to section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act?