Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pranav Sachdeva, Adv.
For the Respondent: R. Sathish, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points formatted with the required reference citations:

• Limitation Period for Cognizance: Cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be taken unless the complaint is filed within one month of the cause of action arising. (!) (!) (!)
• Corporate Liability and Signatories: Every person signing a cheque on behalf of a company does not become the drawer of the cheque; the company itself is the drawer, and the signatory is only vicariously liable. (!) (!)
• Impleading the Company as Accused: For a prosecution under Section 141 to be maintained against a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused. (!)
• Barred by Limitation: An application under Section 319 CrPC to implead a company as an accused, filed years after the dishonor of the cheque, is barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (!) (!)
• Sufficient Cause for Delay: The respondent's claim that they realized the cheque was drawn on the company account only during the trial is patently false, as the company was already served with a demand notice. Therefore, no sufficient cause exists to condone the delay. (!)
• Nature of Cognizance under NI Act: Unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the scheme of prosecution under Section 138 is person-specific; the court must take cognizance of the offence accused-wise, and the identity of the drawer is a crucial ingredient that must be known at the time of filing the complaint. (!)
• High Court's Error: The High Court erred in concluding that no separate petition for condonation of delay was required once cognizance was taken, and in dismissing the appeal solely because the company did not file a revision. (!) (!)
• Result: The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside, and costs are awarded to the appellant. (!)