2016 (9) TMI 921 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary trial procedure to be followed for offences under Section 138 N.I. Act - Held that - A perusal of the decision in Rajesh Agarwal (2010 (7) TMI 279 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) itself shows that this Court was of the view that the trial under Section 138 NI Act cannot be carried out like any other summons trial under IPC offences which frustrate the very purpose of summary disposal of these complaints. This Court held that thus in all cases under Section 138 NI Act once evidence is given by way of affidavit at the stage of pre-summoning, the same be read in evidence by the Court at post summoning stage as well and the witnesses need not be recalled unless Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for reasons, considers it necessary. The guidelines laid down by this Court in Rajesh Agarwal (supra) were obviously prospective in nature and did not lay directions that in all cases where witnesses were under cross-examination, the evidence so recorded be scrapped and de novo trial started after filing an application under Section 145(2) NI Act.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's request for recalling witnesses for cross-examination under Section 145(2) NI Act based on guidelines from a previous case. Interpretation of guidelines for summary trial procedure under Section 138 NI Act. Application of guidelines retrospectively to ongoing cases.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed three complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 2001. After evidence was submitted, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons. Subsequently, the High Court laid down guidelines for a summary trial procedure in a different case, emphasizing quick disposal of complaints under Section 138 NI Act. The guidelines included steps for scrutiny of complaints, taking cognizance, cross-examination of witnesses, and passing orders. The petitioner's counsel argued that witnesses should be recalled for cross-examination only after an application under Section 145(2) NI Act was filed by the respondent disclosing the defense.

The Trial Court, however, rejected the petitioner's request based on the guidelines from the previous case. The Trial Court stated that the guidelines did not mandate switching to a new procedure for ongoing cases and that the order for cross-examination had already been given earlier. The High Court noted that the purpose of a summary trial under Section 138 NI Act was different from regular summons trials under IPC offenses. The High Court clarified that once evidence was given by way of affidavit pre-summoning, it could be considered post-summoning without recalling witnesses unless deemed necessary by the Court.

The High Court emphasized that the guidelines from the previous case were prospective and not meant to invalidate ongoing cross-examinations. Ultimately, the High Court found no issue with the Trial Court's decision and dismissed the petition and application. The Trial Court record was ordered to be sent back promptly.