9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y held that, in any event, the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The Court of a Magistrate does not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in Court in a summons trial case based upon a complaint in general, and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Reference answered accordingly. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR For the petitioner : Mr. N. Hariharan, Amicus Curiae, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma. Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Yugansh Mittal and Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Advocates. For the respondent : Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal) for GNCTD. JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (OPEN COURT) The present criminal reference petition, instituted under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. ) has been referred by the Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act-03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to confer a power of review or recall of the issuance of process by the Trial Court in relation to complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. He referred to a judgment of this Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another v. Kanchan Mehta which reads as follows: While it is true that in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra this Court observed that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 CrPC, the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX CrPC has to be followed to take the trial to its logical conclusion, the said judgment was rendered as per statutory provisions prior to the 2002 Amendment. The statutory scheme post-2002 Amendment as considered in Mandvi Coop. Bank and J.V. Baharuni has brought about a change in law and it needs to be recognised. After the 2002 Amendment, Section 143 of the Act confers implied power on the Magistrate to discharge the accused if the complainant is compensated to the satisfaction of the court, where the accused tenders the cheque amount with interest and reasonable cost of litigation as assessed by the court. Such an interpretation was consistent with the intention of legislature. The court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he words as far as may be in Section 143 are used only in respect of applicability of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the summary procedure to be followed for trials under Chapter XVII. Conferring power on the court by reading certain words into provisions is impermissible. A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policymaking might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. The Judge's duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to meet the Judge's idea of what justice requires. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. 21. A close scrutiny of the judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) would show that they do not warrant any reconsideration. The Trial Court cannot be conferred with inherent power either to review or recall the order of issuance of process. As held above, this Court, in its anxiety to cut down delays in the disposal of complaints under Section 138, has applied Section 258 to hold that the Trial Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for examination of witnesses. 4) We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code. 5) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction. 6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint. 7) Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
