Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.18 OF 2013

Indian Bank Association and others          … Petitioners

                             Versus

Union of India and others                       … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution  

of  India,  has  been  preferred  by  the  Indian  Banks’  

Association  (IBA)  along  with  Punjab  National  Bank  and  

another, seeking the following reliefs :-  

a. Laying down appropriate guidelines/directions to be  followed  by  all  Courts  within  the  territory  of  India  competent to try a complaint under Section 138 of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881  (the  Act)  to  follow and comply with the mandate of Section 143 of  the said Act read with Sections 261 to 265 of Criminal

Page 2

2

Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for summary trial of  such  complaints  filed  or  pending  before  the  said  Courts.

b. Issue  a  writ  of  mandamus for  compliance with  the  guidelines  of  this  Hon’ble  Court  indicating  various  steps to be followed for summary trial of complaints  under Section 138 of the said Act and report to this  Hon’ble Court.

c. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents,  to adopt necessary policy and legislative changes to  deal  with  cases  relating  to  dishonor  of  cheqeus  so  that  the  same  are  expeditiously  disposed  off  in  accordance  with  the  intent  of  the  Act  and  the  guidelines to be laid down by this Hon’ble Court.

2. The first petitioner, which is an Association of Persons  

with 174 banks/financial institutions as its members, is a  

voluntary association of banks and functions as think tank  

for banks in the matters of concern for the whole banking  

industry.  The Petitioners submit that the issue raised in  

this case is of considerable national importance owing to  

the  reason  that  in  the  era  of  globalization  and  rapid  

technological  developments,  financial  trust  and  

commercial interest have to be restored.   

Page 3

3

3. The Petitioners submit that the banking industry has  

been put to a considerable disadvantage due to the delay  

in  disposing  of  the  cases  relating  to  Negotiable  

Instruments Act.  The Petitioner banks being custodian of  

public funds find it difficult to expeditiously recover huge  

amount of public fund which are blocked in cases pending  

under  Section  138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  

1881.   Petitioners submit that, in spite of the fact, Chapter  

XIV has been introduced in the Negotiable Instruments Act  

by Section 4 of the Banking, Public Financial  Institutions  

and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988,  

to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of  

liability by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of  

bouncing  of  cheques  due  to  insufficiency  of  funds,  the  

desired object of the Amendment Act has not achieved.   

4. Legislature  has  noticed  that  the  introduction  of  

Sections 138 to 142 of the Act has not achieved desired  

result  for  dealing  with  dishonoured  cheques,  hence,  it  

inserted  new  Sections  143  to  147  in  the  Negotiable  

Instruments Act vide Negotiable Instruments (Amendment

Page 4

4

and  Miscellaneous  Provisions)  Act,  2002  for  speedy  

disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques through  

summary  trial  as  well  as  making  the  offence  

compoundable.   But, no uniform practice is seen followed  

by the various Magistrate Courts in the country, as a result  

of  which,  the  object  and  purpose  for  which  the  

amendments were incorporated, have not been achieved.  

5. Cheque, though acknowledged as a bill of exchange  

under the Negotiable Instruments Act and readily accepted  

in lieu of payment of money and is  negotiable,  the fact  

remains  that  the  cheque  as  a  negotiable  instrument  

started  losing  its  credibility  by  not  being  honoured  on  

presentation.   Chapter  XVII  was  introduced,  as  already  

indicated, so as to enhance the acceptability of cheques in  

settlement  of  liabilities.   The  Statement  of  Objects  and  

Reasons appended with the Bill explaining the provisions  

of the new Chapter reads as follows :-  

“This clause [Clause (4) of the Bill] inserts a new  Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act,  1881.  The  provisions  contained  in  the  new  Chapter provide that where any cheque drawn  by a person for the discharge of any liability is

Page 5

5

returned by the bank unpaid for the reason of  the  insufficiency  of  the  amount  of  money  standing to the credit of the account on which  the cheque was drawn or for the reason that it  exceeds the arrangements made by the drawer  of the cheque with the bankers for that account,  the drawer of such cheque shall be deemed to  have committed  an offence.  In  that  case,  the  drawer,  without  prejudice  to  the  other  provisions of the said Act, shall  be punishable  with imprisonment for a term which may extend  to one year, or with fine which may extend to  twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.

   The provisions have also been made that  to constitute the said offence:

(a) such cheque should have been presented to  the bank within a period of six months of the  date  of  its  drawal  or  within  the  period  of  its  validity, whichever is earlier; and

(b) the payee or holder in due course of such  cheque  should  have  made  a  demand  for  the  payment of the said amount of money by giving  a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque  within  fifteen  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  information by him from the bank regarding the  return of the cheque unpaid; and

(c)  the  drawer  of  such  cheque  should  have  failed to make the payment of the said amount  of  money  to  the  payee  or  the  holder  in  due  course of the cheque within fifteen days of the  receipt of the said notice.

  It has also been provided that it shall be  presumed,  unless the contrary is  proved,  that  the holder of such cheque received the cheque

Page 6

6

in  the discharge of a liability.  Defences which  may or may not be allowed in any prosecution  for  such  offence  have  also  been  provided  to  make the provisions  effective.  Usual  provision  relating to offences by companies has also been  included in  the said new Chapter.  In  order  to  ensure that genuine and honest bank customers  are  not  harassed  or  put  to  inconvenience,  sufficient safeguards have also been provided in  the  proposed  new  Chapter.  Such  safeguards  are:

(a) that no court shall take cognizance of such  offence except on a complaint, in writing, made  by the payee or the holder in due course of the  cheque;

(b)  that  such  complaint  is  made  within  one  month of the date on which the cause of action  arises; and

(c)  that  no  court  inferior  to  that  of  a  Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate  or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall  try any such offence.”

6. The objectives of the proceedings of Section 138 of  

the  Act  are  that  the  cheques  should  not  be  used  by  

persons as a tool of dishonesty and when cheque is issued  

by a person, it must be honoured and if it is not honoured,  

the  person  is  given  an  opportunity  to  pay  the  cheque  

amount by issuance of a notice and if he still does not pay,  

he must face the criminal trial and consequences.  Section

Page 7

7

138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881,  is  given  

below for easy reference :-

“138.  Dishonour  of  cheque  for  insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.  - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an  account  maintained by him with  a  banker  for  payment  of  any amount  of  money to  another  person  from  out  of  that  account  for  the  discharge,  in whole or in part,  of  any debt or  other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,  either  because  of  the  amount  of  money  standing  to  the  credit  of  that  account  is  insufficient  to  honour  the  cheque  or  that  it  exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from  that account by an agreement made with that  bank,  such  person  shall  be  deemed  to  have  committed  an  offence  and  shall,  without  prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be  punished with  imprisonment  for  a  term which  may extend to one year, or with fine which may  extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or  with both:  

Provided that nothing contained in this section  shall apply unless-  

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank  within a period of six months from the date on  which  it  is  drawn  or  within  the  period  of  its  validity, whichever is earlier;  

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the  cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand  for the payment of the said amount of money  by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of  the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of  information by him from the bank regarding the  return of the cheque as unpaid; and

Page 9

9

8. In  Goa Plast (P) Ltd.  v.  Chico Ursula D’Souza  

(2004)  2  SCC  235,  this  Court,  while  dealing  with  the  

objects and ingredients of Sections 138 and 139 of the  

Act, observed as follows :-

“The  object  and  the  ingredients  under  the  provisions, in particular, Sections 138 and 139  of  the  Act  cannot  be  ignored.  Proper  and  smooth functioning of all business transactions,  particularly,  of  cheques  as  instruments,  primarily  depends  upon  the  integrity  and  honesty of the parties. In our country, in a large  number  of  commercial  transactions,  it  was  noted  that  the  cheques  were  issued  even  merely as a device not only to stall but even to  defraud  the  creditors.  The  sanctity  and  credibility of issuance of cheques in commercial  transactions  was  eroded  to  a  large  extent.  Undoubtedly,  dishonour  of  a  cheque  by  the  bank  causes  incalculable  loss,  injury  and  inconvenience  to  the  payee  and  the  entire  credibility  of  the  business  transactions  within  and  outside  the  country  suffers  a  serious  setback.  Parliament,  in  order  to  restore  the  credibility  of  cheques  as  a  trustworthy  substitute  for  cash  payment  enacted  the  aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a  civil  court  is  a  long-drawn  matter  and  an  unscrupulous  drawer  normally  takes  various  pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee.”

9. We have indicated, Sections 138 to 142 of the Act  

were found to be deficient in dealing with the dishonoured  

cheques.   In  the  said  circumstances,  the  legislature

Page 10

10

inserted  new  Sections  143  to  147  by  the  Negotiable  

Instruments  (Amendment  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions)  

Act, 2002, which is brought into force w.e.f. 6th February,  

2003.  The object and reasons for the said Amendment  

Act are of some importance and are given below :-

“1. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was  amended  by  the  Banking,  Public  Financial  Institutions  and  Negotiable  Instruments  Laws  (Amendment) Act, 1988 wherein a new Chapter  XVII  was incorporated for  penalties  in  case of  dishonour  of  cheques  due  to  insufficiency  of  funds  in  the  account  of  the  drawer  of  the  cheque.  These  provisions  were  incorporated  with a view to encourage the culture of use of  cheques  and  enhancing  the  credibility  of  the  instrument.  The  existing  provisions  in  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,1881,  namely,  sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been  found  deficient  in  dealing  with  dishonour  of  cheques. Not only the punishment provided in  the  Act  has  proved  to  be  inadequate,  the  procedure prescribed for the Courts to deal with  such  matters  has  been  found  to  be  cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose  of  such  cases  expeditiously  in  a  time  bound  manner in view of the procedure contained in  the Act.

2. A large number of cases are reported to be  pending  under  sections  138  to  142  of  the  Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in  the country. Keeping in view the large number  of  complaints  under  the  said  Act  pending  in  various  courts,  a  Working  Group  was  constituted  to  review  section  138  of  the

Page 11

11

Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881  and  make  recommendations  as  to  what  changes  were  needed  to  effectively  achieve  the  purpose  of  that section.

3. The recommendations of the Working Group  along with  other  representations  from various  institutions  and  organisations  were  examined  by  the  Government  in  consultation  with  the  Reserve Bank of India and other legal experts,  and a Bill, namely, the Negotiable Instruments  (Amendment) Bill,  2001 was introduced in the  Lok  Sabha  on  24th  July,  2001.  The  Bill  was  referred  to  Standing  Committee  on  Finance  which  made  certain  recommendations  in  its  report  submitted  to  Lok  Sabha  in  November,  2001.

4. Keeping in view the recommendations of the  Standing  Committee  on  Finance  and  other  representations,  it  has  been  decided  to  bring  out, inter alia, the following amendments in the  Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, namely:— (i)  to  increase  the  punishment  as  prescribed  under the Act from one year to two years; (ii) to increase the period for issue of notice by  the  payee to  the  drawer  from 15 days  to  30  days; (iii) to provide discretion to the Court to waive  the  period  of  one  month,  which  has  been  prescribed  for  taking  cognizance  of  the  case  under the Act; (iv) to prescribe procedure for dispensing with  preliminary evidence of the complainant; (v)  to  prescribe  procedure  for  servicing  of  summons  to  the  accused  or  witness  by  the  Court through speed post or empanelled private  couriers;

Page 12

12

(vi)  to  provide for  summary trial  of  the cases  under  the  Act  with  a  view  to  speeding  up  disposal of cases; (vii)  to  make  the  offences  under  the  Act  compoundable; (viii) to exempt those directors from prosecution  under section 141 of the Act who are nominated  as  directors  of  a  company  by  virtue  of  their  holding any office or employment in the Central  Government or State Government or a financial  corporation owned or controlled by the Central  Government, or the State Government, as the  case may be; (ix)  to  provide  that  the  Magistrate  trying  an  offence shall  have power to pass sentence of  imprisonment  for  a  term exceeding  one  year  and  amount  of  fine  exceeding  five  thousand  rupees; (x)  to  make  the  Information  Technology  Act,  2000 applicable to the Negotiable Instruments  Act,1881 in relation to electronic cheques and  truncated cheques subject to such modifications  and amendments as the Central Government, in  consultation  with  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India,  considers  necessary  for  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  the  Act,  by  notification  in  the  Official Gazette; and  (xi)  to  amend  definitions  of  "bankers'  books"  and "certified copy" given in the Bankers' Books  Evidence Act,1891.

5.  The  proposed  amendments  in  the  Act  are  aimed  at  early  disposal  of  cases  relating  to  dishonour  of  cheques,  enhancing  punishment  for offenders, introducing electronic image of a  truncated  cheque  and  a  cheque  in  the  electronic form as well as exempting an official  nominee  director  from  prosecution  under  the  Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

Page 14

14

so  far  as  practicable,  consistently  with  the  interests  of  justice,  be  continued from day to  day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds  the  adjournment  of  the  trial  beyond  the  following day to be necessary for reasons to be  recorded in writing.  

(3)  Every  trial  under  this  section  shall  be  conducted as expeditiously as possible and an  endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial  within six months from the date of filing of the  complaint.”

11. Section 145 of the Act deals with the evidence on  

affidavit and reads as follows :

“145. Evidence on affidavit.

(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in  the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.)  the evidence of the complainant may be given  by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just  exceptions, be read in evidence in any enquiry,  trial or other proceeding under the said Code.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on  the  application  of  the  prosecution  or  the  accused,  summon  and  examine  any  person  giving  evidence  on  affidavit  as  to  the  facts  contained therein.”

12. The scope of Section 145 came up for consideration  

before this Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited  

v. Nimesh B. Thakore  (2010) 3 SCC 83, and the same  

was explained in that judgment stating that the legislature

Page 15

15

provided  for  the  complainant  to  give  his  evidence  on  

affidavit,  but did not provide the same for the accused.  

The Court held that even though the legislature in their  

wisdom  did  not  deem  it  proper  to  incorporate  a  word  

“accused” with the word “complainant” in Section 145(1),  

it does not mean that the Magistrate could not allow the  

complainant to give his evidence on affidavit, unless there  

was  just  and  reasonable  ground  to  refuse  such  

permission.   

13. This Court while examining the scope of Section 145  

in  Radhey  Shyam  Garg  v.  Naresh  Kumar  Gupta  

(2009) 13 SCC 201, held as follows :-

“If  an  affidavit  in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  Section 145 of the Act is to be considered to be  an evidence, it is difficult to comprehend as to  why the court will ask the deponent of the said  affidavit to examine himself with regard to the  contents thereof once over again.  He may be  cross-examined  and  upon  completion  of  his  evidence,  he  may  be  re-examined.  Thus,  the  words “examine any person giving evidence on  affidavit as to the facts contained therein, in the  event, the deponent is summoned by the court  in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the  Act”,  in  our  opinion,  would  mean  for  the  purpose  of  cross-examination.  The  provision  seeks to attend a salutary purpose.”

Page 16

16

14. Considerable time is usually spent for recording the  

statement of the complainant.  The question is whether  

the  Court  can  dispense  with  the  appearance  of  the  

complainant, instead, to take steps to accept the affidavit  

of the complainant and treat the same as examination-in-

chief.  Section  145(1)  gives  complete  freedom  to  the  

complainant either to give his evidence by way of affidavit  

or by way of oral evidence.  The Court has to accept the  

same even if it is given by way of an affidavit.  Second  

part  of  Section  145(1)  provides  that  the  complainant’s  

statement on affidavit may, subject to all just exceptions,  

be  read  in  evidence  in  any  inquiry,  trial  or  other  

proceedings.   Section 145 is  a  rule  of  procedure which  

lays  down  the  manner  in  which  the  evidence  of  the  

complainant may be recorded and once the Court issues  

summons and the presence of the accused is secured, an  

option be given to the accused whether, at that stage, he  

would  be  willing  to  pay  the  amount  due  along  with  

reasonable interest  and if  the accused is  not  willing  to

Page 18

18

(f) the offence complained of and the offence (if  any) proved, and in cases coming under clause  (ii), clause (iii) or clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of  section 260, the value of the property in respect  of which the offence has been committed; (g) the plea of the accused and his examination  (if any); (h) the finding;

(i) the sentence or other final order (j) the date on which proceedings terminated. 264.   Judgment in cases tried summarily. – In  every  case  tried  summarily  in  which  the  accused does not  plead guilty,  the Magistrate  shall record the substance of the evidence and  a judgment containing a brief statement of the  reasons for the finding.”

16. We have indicated that under Section 145 of the Act,  

the  complainant  can  give  his  evidence  by  way  of  an  

affidavit  and such affidavit  shall  be read in evidence in  

any inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the Court, which  

makes  it  clear  that  a  complainant  is  not  required  to  

examine himself twice i.e. one after filing the complaint  

and one after summoning of the accused.  Affidavit and  

the  documents  filed  by  the  complainant  along  with  

complaint for taking cognizance of the offence are good  

enough to be read in evidence at both the stages i.e. pre-

Page 19

19

summoning  stage  and  the  post  summoning  stage.   In  

other  words,  there  is  no  necessity  to  recall  and  re-

examine  the  complaint  after  summoning  of  accused,  

unless the Magistrate passes a specific order as to why  

the complainant is to be recalled.  Such an order is to be  

passed on an application made by the accused or under  

Section  145(2)  of  the  Act  suo  moto  by  the  Court.   In  

summary trial, after the accused is summoned, his plea is  

to  be  recorded  under  Section  263(g)  Cr.P.C.  and  his  

examination, if any, can be done by a Magistrate and a  

finding can be given by the Court under Section 263(h)  

Cr.P.C.  and  the  same  procedure  can  be  followed  by  a  

Magistrate  for  offence  of  dishonour  of  cheque  since  

offence under Section 138 of the Act is a document based  

offence.  We make it clear that if the proviso (a), (b) & (c)  

to  Section  138  of  the  Act  are  shown  to  have  been  

complied with, technically the commission of the offence  

stands completed and it is for the accused to show that no  

offence could have been committed by him for specific  

reasons and defences.  

Page 20

20

17. Procedure  for  summary  case  has  itself  been  

explained by this Court in  Nitinbhai Saevantilal Shah  

and  another  v.  Manubhai  Manjibhai  Panchal  and  

another  (2011) 9 SCC 638,  wherein this  Court  held as  

under :

“12.  Provision  for  summary  trials  is  made  in  Chapter  XXI  of  the  Code.  Section  260  of  the  Code  confers  power  upon  any  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  or  any  Metropolitan  Magistrate  or  any  Magistrate  of  the  First  Class  specially  empowered in this behalf by the High Court to  try in a summary way all or any of the offences  enumerated therein. Section 262 lays down the  procedure for summary trial and sub-section (1)  thereof  inter  alia  prescribes  that  in  summary  trials the procedure specified in the Code for the  trial of summons case shall be followed subject  to  the  condition  that  no  sentence  of  imprisonment  for  a  term  exceeding  three  months  is  passed  in  case  of  any  conviction  under the chapter.

13.  The  manner  in  which  the  record  in  summary trials is to be maintained is provided  in  Section  263  of  the  Code.  Section  264  mentions that in every case tried summarily in  which  the  accused does  not  plead guilty,  the  Magistrate  shall  record  the  substance  of  the  evidence  and  a  judgment  containing  a  brief  statement of the reasons for the finding. Thus,  the  Magistrate  is  not  expected  to  record  full  evidence which he would have been, otherwise  required  to  record  in  a  regular  trial  and  his  judgment should also contain a brief statement  of the reasons for the finding and not elaborate

Page 21

21

reasons  which otherwise  he  would  have been  required to record in regular trials.”

18. Amendment Act, 2002 has to be given effect to in its  

letter  and  spirit.   Section  143  of  the  Act,  as  already  

indicated,  has been inserted by the said Act stipulating  

that  notwithstanding anything contained in  the Code of  

Criminal Procedure, all offences contained in Chapter XVII  

of the Negotiable Instruments Act dealing with dishonour  

of cheques for insufficiency of funds, etc. shall be tried by  

a Judicial Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to  

265 Cr.P.C. prescribing procedure for summary trials, shall  

apply to such trials and it shall be lawful for a Magistrate  

to  pass  sentence  of  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  

exceeding  one  year  and  an  amount  of  fine  exceeding  

Rs.5,000/- and it is further provided that in the course of a  

summary  trial,  if  it  appears  to  the  Magistrate  that  the  

nature  of  the  case  requires  passing  of  the  sentence of  

imprisonment exceeding one year,  the Magistrate,  after  

hearing  the  parties,  record  an  order  to  that  effect  and  

thereafter  recall  any  witness  and  proceed  to  hear  or

Page 22

22

rehear  the  case  in  the  manner  provided  in  Criminal  

Procedure Code.    

19. This  Court  in  Damodar  S.  Prabhu  v.  Sayed  

Babalal  H.   (2010)  5  SCC  663,  laid  down  certain  

guidelines while interpreting Sections 138 and 147 of the  

Negotiable  Instruments  Act  to  encourage  litigants  in  

cheque dishonour cases to  opt  for  compounding during  

early stages of litigation to ease choking of criminal justice  

system for graded scheme of imposing costs on parties  

who  unduly  delay  compounding  of  offence,  and  for  

controlling of filing of complaints in multiple jurisdictions  

relatable  to  same  transaction,  which  have  also  to  be  

borne in mind by the Magistrate while dealing with cases  

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  

20. 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.   Reference,  in  this  

connection,  may  be  made  to  the  judgments  of  the

Page 23

23

Bombay  High  Court  in  KSL  and  Industries  Ltd.  v.   

Mannalal Khandelwal and The State of Maharashtra   

through  the  Office  of  the  Government  Pleader  

(2005) CriLJ 1201, Indo International Ltd. and another  

v. State of Maharashtra and another  (2005) 44 Civil  

CC  (Bombay)  and  Harischandra  Biyani  v.  Stock  

Holding Corporation of India Ltd.  (2006) 4 MhLJ 381,  

the  judgment  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court  in   Magma  

Leasing  Ltd.  v.  State  of  West  Bengal  and others   

(2007) 3  CHN 574 and the judgment  of  the Delhi  High  

Court in Rajesh Agarwal v. State and another (2010)  

ILR 6 Delhi 610.

21. Many  of  the  directions  given  by  the  various  High  

Courts,  in  our  view,  are  worthy  of  emulation  by  the  

Criminal  Courts  all  over  the country  dealing with  cases  

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for  

which the following directions are being given :-

DIRECTIONS:

(1)     Metropolitan  Magistrate/Judicial  Magistrate  

(MM/JM),  on  the  day  when  the  complaint  under

Page 24

24

Section  138  of  the  Act  is  presented,  shall  

scrutinize  the complaint  and,  if  the complaint  is  

accompanied  by  the  affidavit,  and  the  affidavit  

and  the  documents,  if  any,  are  found  to  be  in  

order,  take  cognizance  and  direct  issuance  of  

summons.   

(2)     MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic  

approach while issuing summons.  Summons must  

be properly addressed and sent by post as well as  

by  e-mail  address  got  from  the  complainant.  

Court,  in  appropriate  cases,  may  take  the  

assistance  of  the  police  or  the  nearby  Court  to  

serve  notice  to  the  accused.   For  notice  of  

appearance,  a  short  date  be  fixed.   If  the  

summons is received back un-served, immediate  

follow up action be taken.

(3)     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

Page 25

25

such  an  application  is  made,  Court  may  pass  

appropriate orders at the earliest.    

(4)     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 251Cr.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  re-calling  a  

witness for cross-examination.    

(5) The  Court  concerned  must  ensure  that  

examination-in-chief,  cross-examination  and  re-

examination  of  the  complainant  must  be  

conducted  within  three  months  of  assigning  the  

case.   The Court has option of accepting affidavits  

of  the  witnesses,  instead  of  examining  them  in  

Court.   Witnesses to the complaint  and accused  

must  be  available  for  cross-examination  as  and  

when there is direction to this effect by the Court.

Page 26

26

22. We, therefore,  direct  all  the Criminal  Courts in the  

country  dealing  with  Section  138  cases  to  follow  the  

above-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious  

disposal  of  cases  falling  under  Section  138  of  the  

Negotiable Instruments Act.  

23. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of, as above.  

…..………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J. (Vikramajit Sen)

New Delhi, April 21, 2014.