Cognisance and condonation are not interchangeable

The High Court treated the order of cognisance and later condonation as interchangeable. The Supreme Court rejected that approach under Section 142(1)(b). The proviso links delayed cognisance to prior satisfaction about sufficient cause. The Court must first decide whether the delayed complaint may be entertained. Only after condonation may cognisance be taken. A later order cannot retrospectively erase the statutory defect in the way accepted below. The sequence gives effect to Parliament’s limitation rule. The proviso must be applied according to its language. (S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya | 2026 INSC 27)