K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

This Revision Petition has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant, after having noticed conflict between the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Muraleedharan Vs. M/s. Sreeram Investment Ltd. & Ors. (2006 (1) KLT 131 = ILR 2005 (4) Kerala 604) and the decision of another learned Judge of this Court in G.T.C. Industrial Ltd. Vs. Abdurahimankutty (1993 (1) KLT 290). The learned Judge who decided Muraleedharan’s case, supra, while dealing with an application under S.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has taken the view that delay in filing a complaint cannot be condoned unless it is supported by an affidavit by the complainant explaining the reasons for the delay.

2. The learned Judge who decided Abdurahimankutty’s case, while interpreting the provisions of S.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took the view that if the delay has been property explained, cognizance can be taken, even without an application for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. The learned Judge while referring the matter felt that an authoritative pronouncement is warranted with regard to the question as to whether a detailed enquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to decide whether the delay deserves to be condoned under S.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or whether an adhoc order is to be passed after entertaining the materials available relegating the question to be decided after exhaustive consideration at the final stage.

3. The first respondent herein who is the complainant has stated that he has given a cheque bearing number 33017 dated 27.01.2005 for an amount of Rs.75,000/- and the same was presented for collection through Punjab National Bank but was dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Notice was sent to the accused on 28.02.2005 and the same was received on 2.3.2005. Complainant has stated that due to ill health he could not file the complaint within the statutory period and there was delay of two months and 14 days in filing the complaint. Petition for condonation of delay was preferred along with an affidavit sworn to by him but not attested by an advocate. The reasons for the delay was explained and a medical certificate was also produced. The court below found that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and the application was allowed. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition has been filed.

4. Shri K.B. Arunkumar, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below ought to have dismissed the application for condonation of delay since the petition was not in the proper form and the affidavit was not attested by the advocate. Further it was also submitted that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay and the court below ought to have dismissed the application. Sri. T.R. Muraleedharan, the counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant on the other hand contended that under the proviso to S.142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act the court can take cognizance of a complaint after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the prescribed period. Counsel submitted that there is no necessity of filing an affidavit and in any view it is not a mandatory requirement. Counsel submitted that the court can take note of the situation whether there was sufficient ground to condone the delay in not making the complaint within the period prescribed.

5. We shall deal with the rival contentions urged by the parties. S.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as amended, is extracted below for easy reference.

“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 S.138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by