2023 (11) TMI 668 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - It is alleged that illegality has been committed by the Trial Court in passing hasty judgment depriving the rights of the accused to cross-examine PW1 - HELD THAT - On reading Indian Bank Association case 2014 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT , there is no observation or the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has to be recorded on the date of the appearance before the Trial Court. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued guidelines to the Trial Courts dealing with N.I. Act cases to expedite the Trial. The Trial Court is duty bound to follow the mandates of the Apex Court in expediting the trial of the cases by following the provisions of N.I. Act. The hasty procedure adopted by the Trial Court is unknown to law. Thereby, it has affected the principles of natural justice. When lis is pending, either civil or criminal, it is the duty of the Court to afford sufficient opportunity to the parties to prove their respective cases. Unless opportunity is given to the parties to the litigation, it cannot be said that justice is being given to the parties to the lis. It is submitted that the accused has got good defence to defend himself. The Trial Court hurriedly passed the judgment of conviction. Therefore, in view of these factual features coupled with non-following of proper procedure by the Trial Court, the impugned judgments are required to be interfered with and are liable to be set aside - The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-accused is hereby allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a revision petition filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a case related to dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Details of the Judgment:

*Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence by the Trial Court*
The complainant filed a private complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the accused dishonored a cheque issued in discharge of a loan. The Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine, with a portion to be compensated to the complainant and the state. The accused challenged this judgment before the First Appellate Court, which upheld the Trial Court's decision.

*Issue 2: Grounds of Revision Petition*
The revision petitioner argued that the Trial Court passed a hasty judgment without giving the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The petitioner claimed that the Trial Court's procedure was irregular, as the accused was not allowed to present a defense or cross-examine witnesses properly. The petitioner cited a similar case where the court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in N.I. Act cases.

*Issue 3: Decision of the High Court*
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial in accordance with the law. Both parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court for further proceedings. The High Court emphasized the need for a fair trial, affording both parties the opportunity to present evidence and documents. The Court instructed the Trial Court to expedite the case, considering its age, and kept all contentions open for further proceedings.