DELHI HIGH COURT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
United Ink & Varnish Co. Ltd. -Petitioner
versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Misc. (M) Nos. 1432, 1569, 1206 of 2000,
1569, 1574, 1575, 1579, 1580,
1581, 1582  and 1583 of 1999
Decided on 20-10-2000
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Singla, Mr. Anil Arora, Mr. Rajiv Awasthi, Ms Seema Gulati and Mr. Arun Aggarwal. Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pawan Baht Advocate.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Prosecution for dishonour of cheque - 11 months date given by Trial Court for recording Complainant's evidence - Petition seeking appropriate directions for trial Court for expeditious disposal of complaints - Object behind to bring provisions on statute was to restore credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment - Court's procedure have to be designed to fulfil the object and intention behind incorporating said provisions Courts have failed to accomplish the object sought to be achieved Directions needed to be issued to steeling the process of adjudication of such Complaints - Courts to adopt pragmatic approach in dealing with these complaints.

       (Paras 22 to 26)

       Held: A large number of complaints are pending for a long time because of totally inadequate number of judicial officers available with the Delhi Judicial Service. The judicial officers are already over-burdened. The available infrastructure is also wholly inadequate. The Government of N.C.T. of Delhi the Ministry of Law and Justice and other concerned Authorities must appreciate the gravity of the situation and take necessary remedial steps immediately. Looking to the manner in which these complaints are presently adjudicated by the Trial Courts, it would take at least 8 to 10 years before most of these complaints are adjudicated. The entire purpose of incorporating these provisions by amendment stands totally defeated. The complainants have to indefinitely wait for years and years before their complaints are adjudicated. The Courts must adopt pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases of this nature. These cases are not only flooding the Trial Courts but a very large number of cases of this nature are filed in other Courts including the High Courts and even in the Supreme Court in Ode form or the other. Satisfactory pragmatic solution puts an end not only to the complaint but to ail the subsequent multiple litigation in various Courts. In most cases of this nature civil suits for recovery are also filed during the pendency of the complaints to save the limitation. It must be clearly understood that these complaints emanate from the commercial transactions. In most cases the complainants are interested in the money due from the accused and they have little interest in securing their, conviction. The accused also file multiple proceedings primarily to gain time even "when they - fully understand inherent weakness of their cases. The Courts should not become victims of this design of the accused. In Ii lost of these cases the accused hardly has any defence. Immediately after the presence of the accused is secured in the Court an option be given to him whether he she is even at that stage willing to pay the amount due and payable to the complainant. Experience reveals that in most cases accused come forward, and offer to pay the amount. This would happen when the accused knows that he cannot gain much time and the complaint filed against him can be disposed of expeditiously. In this view of the matter I deem it appropriate to give the following directions to give effect to the underlying object and intention of the said provisions of Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the larger public interest:

       a. The concerned Courts must examine the complainant within three months of assigning the complaint to the officer concerned.

       b. The Courts instead of examining other cited witnesses orally can accept their affidavits and on the request of the accused they can be directed to appear for cross-examination.

       c. A lot of time is wasted at the stage of summoning the accused. Looking to the prevalent state of affairs it is imperative that all possible steps to serve the summons on the accused must be taken in the first instance itself. Summons be sent by Registered A.D. Speed Post Courier and be sent even through a Court Process Server if it becomes imperative. The Courts should avoid giving long dates and make serious endeavour to secure the presence of the accused.

       d. The complaints filed by the complainants must be disposed of as early as possible and in any event within six months after the statement of the complainant has been examined by the Court. In case the concerned judicial officer is not able to dispose of the complaint within six months after the complainant has been examined then the concerned judicial officer must submit a report to the District and Sessions Judge indicating the "reasons which led to the delay in the disposal of the complaint. The report submitted by the concerned judicial officer shall be taken into consideration while evaluating the performance of the concerned judicial officer.

       e. Serious endeavour must be made to dispose of the pending complaints expeditiously to avoid multiplicity of proceedings before various Courts.

       f. Looking to the fact that a large number of complaints are pending in Delhi Courts particularly in Patiala House Courts and Tis Hazari Courts. it has become imperative to direct the concerned District and Sessions Judge and the Judge Incharge, Patiala House to assign the work pertaining to Sections 138 to 142 Negotiable Instruments Act exclusively to the six judicial officers in Patiala House Courts and four officers in Tis Hazari Courts at least for a period of two years. This arrangement be worked out within four weeks Ordinarily this Court would have assigned exclusive work to the larger number of officers particularly in Patiala House Courts but looking to the available number of judicial officers - and infrastructure it would be difficult to assign the work of these complainants to larger number of officers for the time being to exclusively handle the complaints. Since the number of complaints pending in Karkardooma Courts are only 2169, no specific directions are required. (Paras 22 to 26)

       Result: Petitions disposed of accordingly.