Anand Byrareddy, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity). In a private complaint filed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C., for brevity), it was alleged that the petitioner's father had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 27-11-1996. The same had not been returned inspite of repeated demands. It is further alleged that the petitioner had acknowledged the debt owed by his father to the respondent, as on 25-11-1999 and even subsequently, but ultimately issued a cheque dated 16-2-2006, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, drawn on Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore. The respondent claims to have presented the same for encashment on 16-6-2006 through his banker, M/s. Vijaya Bank, Raichur. The same is said to have been returned with an endorsement to the following effect, 'Refer to drawer'. The respondent is said to have made a demand for payment, claiming that the cheque had been dishonoured and on the footing that the petitioner had failed to comply with the demand, had filed the above complaint. The Court had followed the procedure in respect of the complaint as in any other complaint, except that it had allowed the complainant to file an affidavit in lieu of his sworn statement and ordered summons to the petitioner. His presence was secured and bail was granted during the pendency of the case. The plea of the petitioner that he was not guilty, was duly recorded and the matter was set down for the complainant's evidence. At that stage, the present petition has been filed.

2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri S.M. Chandrashekar, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner while urging the several grounds raised in the revision petition, seeks to highlight a question of considerable importance. It is pointed out that the present petitioner is accused of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act. The provisions of the said Act, Sections 138 to 147 prescribe a hybrid procedure as to the manner in which the same shall be adjudicated, significantly in variance with the manner in which a complaint u/s 200 is to be dealt with under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity). The learned Senior Advocate would hence contend that the very initiation of proceedings u/s 200 Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act, is without jurisdiction and on that ground alone, the proceedings before the Court below ought to be quashed.

Elaborating on the above aspect, it is pointed out that the NI Act 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 dishonor 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. But in course of time, it was found that Sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII of the Act were found to be deficient in dealing with the dishonour of cheques. Hence, in the year 2002, the Legislature thought it fit to amend the NI Act, under the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the said amendment Act, it was stated thus:

...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 unde