INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325, wherein the Honorable Supreme Court examined the reasons for the delay in disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that deals with dishonour of cheques.
Therefore, let us understand the observations made
by the Supreme Court in this regard. The Court started by discussing the scheme
of the NI Act and stated that as on 31.12.2019, “the total number of
criminal cases pending was 2.31 crores, out of which 35.16 lakh pertained to
Section 138 of the Act.”
The Court also observed that there are various
reasons for such delay in the trials such as issues in service of summons,
mechanical conversion of summary cases to summons cases, prolonged mediations,
jurisdictional issues etc.
Hence, let us discuss the directions given by the
Supreme Court to curb the delay in cases relating to the NI Act.
Firstly, the High Courts were requested to make
sure that the Magistrates record reasons before converting trial of complaints
under Section 138 of the NI Act from summary trial to summons trial. Such
reasons must be recorded to in writing.
Secondly, it was directed that a Preliminary
Inquiry must be conducted in Section 138 (Cheque Dishonor) cases to arrive at “sufficient
grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.”
Thirdly, the Court mandated that when an accused
resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate and an inquiry in
this regard is conducted, evidence of complainant witnesses shall be permitted
to be taken on affidavit and the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to
examination of documents. This step would save a lot of time as travelling time
of the witnesses could be cut substantially.
Fourthly, Section 219 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, was discussed that provides that a person cannot be tried for
more than three offences in a single Trial. The Court observed that suitable
amendments are required to be carried out in this section to increase the limit
of offences that could be tried at once in a given trial, as many a times, in
cases of cheque dishonours, other offences such as forgery, criminal breach of
trust, cheating etc. are also involved. So, there are multiple offences.
Fifthly, it was directed that wherever there are
multiple complaints under Section 138 forming part of the same transaction or
arising out of same transaction, the High Courts should issue practice
directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one case under
Section 138, as deemed service in respect of all the other complaints filed
before the same court that are linked to the same transaction or cause of
action. So, if there are multiple cheques that have been dishonoured in a case
and there are multiple cases of section 138 pending before the same court, in
such cases, service in one case could be treated as deemed service in all the
other cases.
Sixthly, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier
order that “there is no inherent power of Trial Courts tor review or recall
the issue of summons.” Many a times in cases of section 138, multiple
summons are issued and the court recall their summons. So, in order to cure such
problems, the Court issued this direction.
And lastly, there was a Committee that was constituted
to look into the delay in Section 138 cases. The Court directed it to further
deliberate and discuss the other issues at length.
So, what are my concluding remarks?
I feel that pendency of Cheque Dishonour cases is one of the biggest issues that has been haunting the Indian Judiciary since quite some time. The guidelines provided by the Supreme Court that we just discussed would be quite profitable to solve this issue to a certain extent. I hope that the High Courts and the Trial Courts implement the same in proper perspective and as expeditiously as possible.
Please do not forget to like and subscribe us.
No comments:
Post a Comment