9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 540 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - seeking expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - From perusal of record, it appears that the proceeding under the Act, 1881 is pending since 2021. However, as per Section 143(2) of Act, 1881 the trial for the offence under the Act, 1881 should be conducted on day to day basis and it is further provided u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1881 that the trial should be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. The Apex Court in the case of INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2014 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT , has issued direction for expeditious disposal of the cases under the Act, 1881. From the above mentioned judgement of Apex Court, it is clear that the Apex Court for expeditious disposal of cases under the Act, 1881 has issued several directions which the concerned court/Magistrate has to follow while deciding the cases under the Act, 1881. From the observations of the Apex Court as well as analysis of Sections 138 143 of the Act, 1881, it is expedient that all the proceedings under the Act, 1881 should be concluded expeditiously without going into unnecessary technicality. This Court directs the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Prayagraj, to decide the Complaint Case No.468 of 2019 (Chandrama Prasad Singh Vs. Vijendra Pratap Singh), under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station-Khiri, District-Prayagraj, keeping in mind the direction of the Apex Court in above mentioned cases, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with statutory provision of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Act, 1881, if there is no legal impediment. The application is disposed of.
Issues:
Expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Analysis: The High Court was approached through a 482 Cr.P.C. application to direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 expeditiously. The application highlighted the delay in the pending proceeding since 2021, contrary to the provisions of Section 143(2) and 143(3) of the Act, which mandate day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The court referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of cases under the Act. The Supreme Court's directions included specific procedures for speedy disposal, such as scrutinizing complaints on the day of filing, issuing summons promptly, and conducting examination of witnesses within three months. The High Court, in line with the Supreme Court's directives, directed the Magistrate to decide the case within six months and not hesitate to use coercive measures to ensure the accused's presence during trial. The judgment also referenced another Supreme Court case, In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, which provided additional directions for expeditious trial under section 138. These directions included recording reasons before converting trial types, conducting inquiries when accused reside beyond the court's jurisdiction, permitting evidence on affidavit, recommending amendments for one trial against a person for multiple offences, and treating service of summons in related complaints as deemed service for all. The judgment reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that Trial Courts lack inherent power to review or recall summons, except under specific circumstances, and that Section 258 of the Code does not apply to complaints under Section 138 of the Act. In conclusion, the High Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives. The court directed the Magistrate to decide the pending case expeditiously, within six months, and utilize coercive measures if necessary to ensure the accused's presence during trial. The judgment underscored the need to adhere to statutory provisions and avoid unnecessary delays in legal proceedings, as mandated by the relevant sections of the Act and the Supreme Court's directions.
|
