2005 (9) TMI 668 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the amended provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to complaints pending on the date of the amendment's enforcement.
2. Nature of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as procedural or substantive law.
3. Retrospective or prospective application of procedural amendments in criminal law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Amended Provisions to Pending Complaints:
The primary issue was whether the amendments made to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, apply to complaints under Section 138 that were pending when the amendments came into force on February 6, 2003. The applicant contended that the amendments, being procedural, should apply retrospectively to all pending complaints. The respondent argued that penal provisions typically apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.

2. Nature of Section 145 - Procedural or Substantive:
Section 145 of the amended Act allows evidence to be given by affidavit, which is a procedural change. The court examined whether this section affects any vested rights or merely alters the procedure. It was determined that Section 145 is purely procedural, as it does not create new offences or liabilities but merely changes the manner in which evidence can be presented.

3. Retrospective or Prospective Application of Procedural Amendments:
The court relied on various precedents to establish that procedural laws generally apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court cited the Apex Court's decisions, including Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan and Anant Gopal Sheorey v. The State of Bombay, which held that no person has a vested right in procedural law, and procedural changes apply to ongoing cases unless they create new rights or liabilities.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 145, being procedural, applies retrospectively to all complaints pending as of February 6, 2003. The legislative intent behind the amendments was to expedite the trial process and make it less cumbersome, which supports the retrospective application of procedural changes. Consequently, the order by the Additional Sessions Judge was quashed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with Section 145 of the amended Act.

Order:
1. The impugned order dated April 12, 2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge was quashed and set aside.
2. The trial judge was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law.
3. It was clarified that Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, applies to complaints pending on February 6, 2003.
4. Parties and the concerned court were instructed to act upon an authenticated copy of the order.