Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s. 138 – Expeditious trial/disposal of cases u/s. 138 – Pendency of matters u/s. 138 at various levels, having adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases – Imminent need for remedying the situation – Suo Motu Writ Petition – Issuance of notice to Union of India, Registrar Generals of the High Courts, Director Generals of Police of the States and Union Territories, Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority, Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banks’ Association – Submission of preliminary report by amici curiae, based on the responses by the State Government and Union Territories – In veiw thereof, necessary suggestions made for redressal of backlog of cases, by this Court – Request to High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints u/s 138 from summary trial to summons trial – Inquiry to be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court – For the conduct of inquiry u/s 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant to be permitted to be taken on affidavit, and in suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses – Amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences u/s 138 committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in s. 219 of the Code – Request to High Courts to issue practice directions to the trial courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 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 – Amendment to the Act empowering the trial courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints u/s 138 to be considered by the Committee constituted, alongwith the other issues relating to expeditious disposal of complaints u/s 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 219, 258, 322.
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others (2004) 7 SCC 338; Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 324 – relied on.
Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 : [2017] 10 SCR 66 – held not correct law.
Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. (2014)
14 SCC 638 : [2014] 4 SCR 171; Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC
528 : [2016] 9 SCR 475; Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 610 : [2019] 7 SCR 655; K.S. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd & Anr. (2016) 11 SCC
105 : [2016] 2 SCR 914; Balbir v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 285 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 120; Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2019
(10) SCJ 238; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr. [1964] 3 SCR 297; K. M.
Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr (1992) 1 SCC 217 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 364; Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : [1991] 3 SCR 873 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.