Key Points: - The judgment mandates expeditious disposal of Section 138 complaints and sets a six-month limit from securing the accused’s presence, with reporting if delay occurs (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that under Section 145(1), the complainant may give evidence by affidavit or orally, and if on affidavit, may be read in evidence with cross-examination on request by the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Directions include pragmatic service methods (including email and police aid), concluding examination-in-chief/cross-examination within three months, and day-to-day trial continuation; creation of additional judicial posts and appointment of officers to handle Section 138 cases exclusively (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes the need to dispose of about four lakh pending complaints and to monitor compliance via quarterly reports (!) (!) . - The object of the amendments is to enhance credibility of cheques as a business instrument and to ensure expeditious disposal of such cases (!) (!) (!) .

What is the mandate for expeditious adjudication of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the six-month time limit from service of summons or warrants?

What is the expression of Section 145(1) regarding evidence on affidavit and the circumstances under which the complainant may be cross-examined or examined in court?

What steps and measures are recommended to ensure expeditious disposal of Section 138 complaints, including service methods, staffing, and day-to-day trial requirements?