Cognizance of offences
Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with cognizance of offences. ] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (a) no court shall take cognizance of any 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; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1882.
1[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any 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;
(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:
2[Provided 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;]
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.].
3[(2) The 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 through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.]
Section 142, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-19.pdf 2014-09-19. Crl.A. 605/2012 with Crl.A. 1924-1925/2014. R.M. Lodha CJI 3-judge reportable. DATE-CHECK false positive (2012-04-03 referral / 2008 notice dates in the facts); body is the named 19 Sept 2014 3-judge. Isolates NI 142: a complaint filed before the 15-day period in s.138(c) expires is no complaint in the eye of law; s.142(b) limitation runs from the cause of action after that 15-day window; the complainant may file a fresh complaint with the s.142 proviso if still in time. Map ni-act 142 cited only. Do not pad ni-act 138 (already filled by Dashrath).
On this section: A cheque-dishonour complaint filed before the 15 days in NI 138(c) expire is no complaint; NI 142 cognizance and limitation run only after that window, and a fresh complaint may be filed with the s.142 proviso (Yogendra Pratap Singh). Do not pad ni-act 138 (already filled).
-
Bridgestone India Pvt. LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is determined by the place where the cheque is delivered for collection (i.e., the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account) or where it is presented for payment (i.e., the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account), not by the place where the cheque is drawn. The amended Section 142(2), through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1), overrides prior judgments and the general jurisdiction principles under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and applies retrospectively to cases pending before the amendment came into force.
On this section: Original provision stipulated that cognizance could only be taken upon a complaint by the payee or holder within one month of the cause of action accruing. The Court analyzed the amended version which now specifies territorial jurisdiction based on where the cheque is delivered for collection or presented for payment.
-
Bridgestone India PVT LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, lies in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account is situated (i.e., where the cheque is delivered for collection), not where the cheque is drawn or where the drawee bank is located. The amended Section 142(2) and Section 142A(1) override the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and prior judgments, including Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, and apply retrospectively to pending cases.
On this section: Originally specified jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases; amended by the 2015 Ordinance to clarify that jurisdiction lies where the cheque is delivered for collection (payee's bank branch) or where the drawer maintains an account (if presented otherwise).
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Cited to show departure from CrPC procedure; complaint by payee only; one month time limit; jurisdiction of first class magistrate
-
Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Sood Resins and Polymers
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings are 'proceedings' within the meaning of that section. The moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors and officers) who can continue to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The rules of statutory construction (noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis) cannot be applied to restrict the meaning of 'proceedings' in Section 14(1)(a) when the expression is designedly wide and the object of the statute is clear - which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process.
On this section: Analyzed to show departure from CrPC procedure and hybrid nature of Section 138 proceedings
-
Msr Leathers vs S. Palaniappan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecution based on second or successive dishonour of a cheque is permissible under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provided all three conditions precedent in the proviso to Section 138 are satisfied: (1) the cheque is presented within the validity period; (2) notice is given within 30 days of receiving information of dishonour; and (3) the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving notice. The failure to prosecute based on the first dishonour does not bar prosecution based on subsequent dishonours, as each dishonour that satisfies the statutory conditions constitutes a fresh cause of action. The holder of a cheque has the right to present it for encashment multiple times within its validity period, and each presentation and dishonour may give rise to separate criminal liability, independent of whether earlier defaults were prosecuted.
On this section: Court analyzed that no provision in Sections 138 or 142 prevents holder from presenting cheque multiple times within six months or validity period, and that expiry of first limitation period does not absolve criminal liability for subsequent dishonours
-
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Pay Order issued by a bank is a cheque within the meaning of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the holder of such Pay Order has the legal standing to file a criminal complaint for dishonour. The fact that the drawer and drawee are the same banking institution does not prevent the instrument from being a cheque when held by a third party. The holder is presumed to be a holder in due course under Section 118(g) unless the contrary is proved, and such presumption cannot be rebutted at the stage of quashing the complaint but only during trial.
On this section: Complaint procedure; envisages complaint by payee or holder in due course; court applied this to establish complainant's standing
-
Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs Naimulla M. Khan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A sole proprietor of a proprietary concern cannot maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based solely on affidavit claiming proprietorship. The proprietor must establish his proprietorship through documentary evidence such as business registration documents, tax records, bank account statements, and similar official records to satisfy the statutory requirement of being the 'payee' or 'holder in due course' of the cheque. Mere affidavit statements, admissions by the accused, or oral testimony of witnesses are insufficient when documentary evidence can reasonably be expected to exist for a substantial business undertaking.
On this section: Cognizance of offence - only 'payee or holder in due course' can file complaint; court interpreted to mean that when payee is a proprietary concern, complaint must be filed by proprietor establishing proprietorship, or in the name of concern, or by authorized power of attorney holder
-
Asim Srivastava vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a written complaint made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. An FIR filed by an informant with the police is not a maintainable mode of initiating proceedings for cheque dishonour offences. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by police following an FIR, as this circumvents the statutory requirement for a written complaint from the payee. The procedural safeguard of serving a notice of demand on the drawer within the stipulated period is a condition precedent for filing a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
On this section: Mandates that no court shall take cognizance of Section 138 offence except upon a written complaint from the payee or holder in due course; complaint must be made within one month of cause of action; no court inferior to Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class can try such offence
-
Gopichand Hanmantrao Chate vs Entertainment Network (india) LTD through Authorized
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Exclusion of limitation under the proviso to Section 142(b) of the NI Act requires a formal application explaining sufficient cause; mere recitals in the complaint are insufficient to exercise judicial discretion for condonation of delay.
On this section: Proviso regarding the 30-day limitation and condonation of delay.
-
Dharam Nath vs Krishan Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque has been duly signed and issued by the accused, and the holder of the cheque has established the existence of a legally enforceable debt through credible evidence (including testimony regarding possession of pronote and receipt), the accused cannot escape liability by simple denial. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of the cheque, and to rebut this presumption, the accused must present cogent facts and circumstances making it plausible that no debt existed. Technical objections regarding non-production of original documents are not sustainable when the accused had opportunity to demand their production during cross-examination but failed to do so. The burden shifts to the accused to prove absence of debt, not merely to deny it.
On this section: Cited by petitioner as ground of appeal but not specifically analyzed; relates to defences available to accused in cheque dishonour cases
-
M.koteswara Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which contains a non-obstante clause, permits the Magistrate to take cognizance of a cheque dishonour complaint based on affidavit evidence from the complainant, notwithstanding the general requirement in Sections 200-202 of the Criminal Procedure Code to record sworn statements. This special procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act is saved by Sections 4-5 of the Criminal Procedure Code and overrides the general procedural requirements for pre-cognizance enquiry.
On this section: As amended by Act 55/2002 (effective 06-02-2003), provides statutory provision for Magistrate to take cognizance after expiry of one month period if sufficient cause is shown for delay
-
Sardar Harvinder Singh vs Chobrolu Hutasana Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the cheque amount remains unpaid, the sentence imposed by the trial court must be of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation and must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. A sentence consisting only of a fine that is grossly disproportionate to the cheque amount (such as a fine of Rs. 10,000 for a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000) without any substantive imprisonment, and without regard to the legislative intent to protect creditors and ensure accountability of cheque drawers, is inadequate and defeats the very object of the enactment. Personal circumstances of the accused, such as health conditions or family dependents, cannot justify imposing a sentence that is not commensurate to the gravity of the offense. The existence of a civil decree obtained in separate proceedings is not a ground to impose an inadequate criminal sentence. A criminal revision petition by a complainant challenging the inadequacy of sentence is maintainable under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, as the victim has the right to appeal against inadequate sentence under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
On this section: Cited as companion provision to Section 138 in the original complaint
-
Dinesh Prasad vs Nitesh Kumar Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed during a period when the Supreme Court has extended the limitation period through a Suo Motu order (as was done during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022), the trial court must take judicial notice of such extension order and cannot hold the complaint to be barred by limitation if it was filed within the extended period. The trial court's failure to consider such a binding Supreme Court order and acquitting the accused solely on the ground of limitation, without examining the merits of the case, constitutes an error of law that warrants interference by the appellate court.
On this section: Limitation period for filing complaint under Section 138 - the trial court incorrectly applied this section without considering the Supreme Court's extension order during COVID-19
-
M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs SHIVAM GOYAL
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an affidavit in support of a complaint under Section 145(1) of the NI Act is filed, separate verification of the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC is not mandatory for issuing process.
On this section: Limitation period and cognizance of offenses.
-
Abilio Dsouza vs Adarsh Yeshwant Shet Mayekar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A sole proprietor can file a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in his individual capacity for cheques issued in the name of his sole proprietorship concern, as a sole proprietorship does not constitute a separate juristic person and does not fall within the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. The complaint is maintainable when the sole proprietor is the sole beneficiary and manager of the proprietorship account, and the cheques are issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. All ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are satisfied when: (i) valid cheques are drawn on the account of the drawer; (ii) cheques are for payment of money; (iii) cheques are issued in discharge of debt or liability; (iv) cheques are returned unpaid; and (v) demand notice is served and payment is not made within 15 days. The presumption under Section 139 NI Act applies unless rebutted by the accused.
On this section: Cited to establish that complaint can be filed by proprietor of proprietorship concern describing himself as sole proprietor of the payee
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… As per Section 138 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the amount to 'payee' or as the case may be to the 'holder in due course' of the cheque within 15 days the cause of action will arise. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the 'payee' or, as the case may be, the 'holder in due course' of the cheque. 10. Section 7 of the Negotiable …
Questions about Section 142
What have the courts held on Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey (19 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A cheque-dishonour complaint filed before the 15 days in NI 138(c) expire is no complaint; NI 142 cognizance and limitation run only after that window, and a fresh complaint may be filed with the s.142 proviso (Yogendra Pratap Singh). Do not pad ni-act 138 (already filled). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NI Act 142, section 142 NI Act, section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. People searching for it also type ni act 142(2) and ni act 142 b. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey (19 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act come into force?
Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, commonly called cheque bounce limitation, and cited as NI Act 142, came into force on 01 Mar 1882, having been enacted on 09 Dec 1881. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account312 words
- 142A. Validation for transfer of pending cases299 words
- 143. Power of Court to try cases summarily297 words
- 143A. Power to direct interim compensation291 words
- 141. Offences by companies287 words
- 84. When cheque not duly presented and drawer damaged thereby279 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.