The Revision is directed against the order dated 12. 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti in Crl.M.P.No.7350 of 2005.

.2. The petitioner/complainants case is briefly as follows:

.The petitioner herein is the complainant. The respondent/ accused borrowed a sum of Rupees one lakh from the complainant and issued a post dated cheque for the said sum. Since he had not repaid the amount borrowed, the complainant sent the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured. Therefore, on 6. 2004, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused and the said notice was received by the accused on 6. 2004. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the accused had not repaid the amount within fifteen days therefore, the complainant preferred the complaint under section 142 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The complainant ought to have filed the petition within the stipulated time. But he preferred the petition with the delay of thirteen months. The reason adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that since negotiations were going on between the complainant and the accused, which was mediated by one Gurusamy, who was the Ex-President of the Kammavur Sangam and on believing the words of the accused that he would settle the cheque amount within six or seven months, the complainant could not file the petition in time.

4. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the case of the complainant on the ground the Court was not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the complainant and he refused to entertain the petition. The learned Magistrate has also not accepted the plea of the complainant about the compromise between the parties.

5. But, as per section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if the complaint is not filed with the time prescribed under the Act, the complainant must satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period.

.6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/complainant relied upon the case in RAM NATH SAO Vs. GOBARDHAN SAI reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201, wherein it has been held as follows:

."The expression sufficient cause within the meaning of S.5 of the Act or O.22, R.9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. In a particular case, whether explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the Court should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the Courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning the delay in a routine like manner. However by taking a pedantic and hyper-technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and /or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, Courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way."

.7. The learned counsel