Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Cognizance, Limitation and Jurisdiction
Section 142 lays down special procedural rules for prosecution of an offence under Section 138. It identifies who may file the written complaint, prescribes the filing period and power to condone delay, specifies the minimum level of the trial court, and, through Section 142(2), determines territorial jurisdiction.
Complainant: the complaint must be in writing by the payee or holder in due course.
Limitation: it must ordinarily be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arises under Section 138 proviso (c), subject to condonation for sufficient cause.
Trial court: an offence under Section 138 cannot be tried by a court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
Territorial jurisdiction: Section 142(2), inserted in 2015, specifies the court having local jurisdiction depending on whether the cheque is delivered for collection through an account or otherwise.
Section 142 - Cognizance of offences
The section begins with a non-obstante clause referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Clause (a): no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque.
Clause (b): the complaint must be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. The proviso permits the court to take cognizance after that period if the complainant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for not making the complaint within time.
Clause (c): no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under Section 138.
An offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction:
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise than through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account is situated.
The statutory explanation provides that where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, it is deemed to have been delivered to the branch where that person maintains the account.
Who can file a Section 138 complaint?
Section 142(1)(a) restricts cognizance to a written complaint by the payee or the holder in due course. Under Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a holder in due course is, broadly, a person who for consideration became the possessor of a bearer instrument, or the payee or indorsee of an order instrument, before the amount became payable and without sufficient cause to believe that a defect existed in the title of the person from whom title was derived.
This special requirement is part of the statutory scheme governing cheque dishonour prosecutions and operates with the substantive ingredients of Section 138.
One-month filing period and condonation of delay
The one-month period in Section 142(1)(b) runs from the date on which the cause of action arises under Section 138 proviso (c). Under that provision, the cause of action is linked to failure of the drawer to make payment within the statutory period after receipt of the demand notice.
Which court can try the offence?
Section 142(1)(c) fixes the minimum judicial level: no court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class may try an offence punishable under Section 138. This requirement must be read together with Section 142(2), which determines the territorial court in which the offence is to be inquired into and tried.
Territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2)
Section 142(2) was inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. The present statutory rule focuses on the relevant bank branch. In March 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that, where a cheque is delivered for collection through an account, jurisdiction lies with the court where the branch in which the payee or holder in due course maintains the account is situated.
Current Supreme Court treatment
The Supreme Court has continued to apply the 2015 jurisdiction scheme and has emphasised the statutory significance of the particular bank branch for deciding the proper territorial court under Section 142(2).
Reference to CrPC in Section 142 and the current BNSS context
The enacted text of Section 142 continues to open with the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973". The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024 and repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to its savings and transitional provisions.
For current proceedings, the special requirements contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act must therefore be read with the presently applicable general criminal procedure and the relevant saving or transitional provisions. The statutory wording of Section 142 itself should not be rewritten merely because the general procedural code has changed.
Official statutory and judicial sources
India Code - Central Acts and legislation