Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 145, 200, 202 — Complaint w/s. 138 against the appellant — Appellant sought quashing of order of cognizance and issuance of suiimons — Appellant’ case that there was delay of 62/63 days in filing the complaint and summons were issued without applying the mind to the issue of delay; that cognizance could not have been taken without examining.the complainant on solemn affirmation; and that the appellant being an accused and a resident of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who has issued summons, the enquiry u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. was not done — Rejection by High Court — On appeal, held: Non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) of s. 145 is self-explanatory and over-rules the requirement of examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation u/s. 200 Cr.P.C, - Complainant entitled to give his evidence on affidavit and subject to all just exceptions, the same has to be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under Cr.P.C., thus, plea based on s, 200 untenable - Court can take cognizance even after the prescribed period but only if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within the prescribed period — Magistrate did not apply mind either to the issue of delay or to the requirement of s.202 CrP.C. — As such, the correctness of submission based upon s. 202 Cr.P.C. and as to whether such requirement of enquiry or investigation is attracted even to a case under the Act, is left open - However, on the ground of non-application of mind to the issue of delay and since the High Court passed a summary order, the order of the High Court and the Magistrate, set aside - Magistrate to re-consider the issue of delay, its condonation, as well as requirement of enquiry u/s. 202 CrPC.