Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 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. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, has issued direction for expeditious disposal of the cases under the Act, 1881. Paragraph Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgement are being quoted as under: 22. We notice, considering all those aspects, few High Courts of the country have laid down certain procedures for speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eceived back unserved, immediate follow-up action be taken. 23.3. The court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, the court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. 23.4. The court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross-examination. 23.5. The court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting 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 transacti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. 8. Considering the aforesaid judgements, 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, st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates