M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

Complainant in C.M.P.Nos.2628/04, 2631/04, 2629/04 and 2630/04 is the revision petitioner. Respective petitions were filed to condone delay in lodging complaint. The complaint was filed under S.138 of N.I. Act. All petitions were dismissed by the Court below as per separate orders on the ground that petitioner was absent and no steps were taken to issue notice to accused. It is seen from the order itself that revision petitioner was represented by a counsel though complainant was absent. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that accused has no right to be heard before cognizance of the offence was taken. Argument is that as delay has to be condoned before taking cognizance, accused cannot be heard at the pre-cognizance stage. I cannot agree with the submission. In a complaint filed for the offence under S.138 of N.I. Act, it may not be proper to deny opportunity to the accused to defend the case on the ground of delay which would be available to him. If the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is to be upheld that opportunity would be lost to the accused. It cannot be the intention of the Legislatur