1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code directed against the order dated 10.01.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short the 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No.I Ram Niwas Singania against the order dated 09.11.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No 2, Bikaner (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) was allowed and the order dated 09.11.2005 passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside and the accused respondent No.1 Ram Niwas Singania was discharged of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order of the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court as also the record of the Court below.

3. From the record, it appears that a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent No.1 before the Trial Court 05.12.2003. By order dated 12.02.2004, the Trial Court took the cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act and issued the process. In pursuance thereof, the accused respondent appeared before the Trial Court and was released on bail. During trial of the case, an application was moved by the accused respondent on 17.08.2004 raising objection to the order taking cognizance contending therein that the order taking cognizance is' .barred by period of limitation. That application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and in my view rightly so in view of the Three Judges Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Roopal Jindal & Ors., JT 2004(7) SC 243: 2006(2) NLJ 596 (SC) as also in Subramanim Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2004 (2) Apex Court Judgments 507 (S. C.) : 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 307 (S C.) : 2004 Crl. L.J. 4609: 2004(4) Cr. CC 304 (SC) : 2007(1) NIJ 469 (SC) . However, that order came to be challenged by way of revision and the Revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to on rehear and decide the question of limitation. By order dated 09.1 1.2005, the Trial Court again dismissed the application filed by accused respondent justifying the condonation of the delay of 5-6 days in filing the complaint. That order came to be challenged by the accused by way of revision being Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2005 and the Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 09.11.2005. Hence, this criminal misc. petition.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court is empowered to condone the delay in filing the complaint in view of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act which provides 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 and the said proviso came to be inserted under Section 142 of the Act by Act 55 of 2002 w.e.f. 06.02.2003. In the instant case, the cause of action to file the complaint was accrued to the petitioner on dishonour of the cheque issued by the accused respondent in his favour and after noting to the accused on his failure to pay the cheque amount within the period of limitation by end of October, 2003 and therefore, the proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act fully applied to the present case.

5. I have carefully gone through the complaint filed by the petitioner against accused respondent. The complaint came to be filed on 05.12.2003 and the averments made in the complaint clearly goes to show that four cheques were issued by the accused respondent on 17.03.2003, 31.03.2003, 17.04.2003 and 30.04.2003 which have presented to the Bank and returned unpaid on 01.10.2003 with the endorsement that the amount in the account of holder is insufficient to honour the cheques and thus remained unpaid for want to sufficient fund.