IMPORTANT POINT
In view of amendment, in Negotiable Instrument Act, the law mandates on JMFC/MM to endeavour to conclude trial in respect of dishonour of cheques within six months.

B.B. Vagyani, J.— Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.

2. In all the criminal writ petitions, common question is raised and, therefore, all these criminal writ petitions are disposed of by common

Order.

3. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 43/2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 409 of 1989) on 1.9.1989 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 975 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for recording oral evidence.

4. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 44 of 2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 12 of 1990) on 3.1.1990 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 1976 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for hearing.

5. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 45 of 2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 5 of 1990) on 1.12.1989 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 8014 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for hearing.

6. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 46 of 2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 435 of 1989) on 29.10.1989 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 80155 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for hearing.

7. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 534 of 2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (SCC No. 100 of 1999) on 16.2.1999 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for hearing.

8. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 535 of 2002 has filed a private criminal complaint (SCC No. 8010 of 1999) on 15.2.1999 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The case is ready for evidence.

9. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 536 of 2002 has filed a private criminal complaint (SCC No. 3365 of 1998) on 25.11.1998 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and the case is ready for hearing.

10. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 538 of 2002 has filed a private criminal complaint. (SCC No. 3364 of 1998) on 24.11.1998 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The case is ripe for hearing.

11. In response to our notice, the learned APP Mr. K.G. Patil for the State and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.M. Shah for the Registrar, High Court of Judicature of Bombay appeared in the matter. No affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents. However, they made oral submissions. The learned Counsel Mr. P.F. Patni and Mr. A.S. Bajaj for the petitioners have made a serious grievance with regard to large number of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being kept unattended without there being any valid reason. By making special reference to some of the cases, they brought to our notice that some of the cases are pending since 1989. On the background of recent amendment, they submit that necessary direction is required to be issued to both the respondent. Because of dearth of hands, it is not possible to reduce the arrears of cases and to give effect to the recent amendment. Therefore, according to them, direction to the State is required to be given to appoint sufficie