ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision No.401/2018 by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur dated 03.12.2018 whereby the revision preferred by the complainant has been allowed and the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur in unregistered case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been set aside.

2. The case, in nutshell, is that, the respondent filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the IPC on the ground that cheque No.189467 was issued in discharge of liability by the petitioner on 15.12.2017 and when it was presented before the ICICI bank, Bilaspur on 18.12.2017 it got dishonoured. The complainant was informed regarding dishonour of cheque and intimation was given in this regard on 19.12.2017 and again it was dishonoured on 06.02.2018 which was presented before the bank on assurance given by the petitioner. A legal demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued on 28.02.2018 by the petitioner, but he could not receive the postal acknowledgment and thereafter, he approached the postal department thereafter the same was received by him on 22.05.2018, whereas the complaint case was filed on 30.05.2018.

3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2018 dismissed the complaint case on the ground that though the application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been moved, but the complainant could not disclose the fact as to when the application regarding postal acknowledgment was moved before the postal department. The complainant challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 01.08.2018 before the learned Sessions Court by filing revision and same was allowed vide order dated 03.12.2018 where the learned revisional Court held that the delay was bonafide and the complainant has explained the reason for such delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there is provision for condonation of delay in the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the complainant has not explained the delay of 92 days in his application. He would submit that it is a special Act and the delay cannot be condoned by the courts while exercising the revisional power. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Econ Antri Limited Vs. Rom Industries Limited and another, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 769 and referred to para 6, 9, 14 and 20 of the said judgment which read as under:

“6. Section 142 of the N.I. Act reads as under:

“142. Cognizance of offences: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138;

Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.”

9. In Saketh [Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 1] cheques dated 15/3/1995 and 16/3/1995 issued by the accused therein bounced when presented for encashment. Notices were served on the accused on 29/9/1995. As per proviso (c) to Section 138 of the NI Act, the accused were required to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice i.e. on or before 14/10/1995. The accused failed to pay the amount. The cause of action, therefore, arose on 15/10/1995. According to the complainant for calculating one month’s period contemplat