Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3221
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Naqvi, J.
Subhadra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. - 35747 of 2015
Decided On : 14-12-2015
For the Petitioner: Prashant Pandey.
For the Respondents: G.A.
The legislative mandate of expeditious trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the imposition of costs for unjustified adjournments.
Headnote:
Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act - Expeditious Trial - The court directed the magistrate to ensure expeditious conclusion of the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, emphasizing the legislative mandate and citing relevant judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending since 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the magistrate to ensure expeditious conclusion of the complaint case, emphasizing the legislative mandate and citing relevant judgments.
Issues: Delay in trial of complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial of such offences shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and adjournments shall be for very strong and compelling reasons, as per the legislative mandate and relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application, directing the magistrate to ensure expeditious conclusion of the complaint case and imposing costs for unjustified adjournments.
Pankaj Naqvi, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking a direction to the court concerned to decide Complaint Case No.2296 of 2012 (Subhadra Singh vs. Krishna Kumar Soni) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IXth, Varanasi expeditiously.
3. The contention is that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, lodged by the applicant is pending before the court concerned since 24.9.2012. Even though dates are being fixed at regular intervals, no tangible progress is made, which is virtually defeating the legislative mandate of Section 143(3) of the Act, which provides that the trial of such offences, 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.
4. The judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 590 and J.V. Baharuni and another v. State of Gujarat and another, 2014 (10) SCC 494 (para-61) also affirm the said mandate.
5. The learned Magistrate shall ensure that the proceedings of the complaint case are taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.
6. Adjournments, if any, shall be for very strong and compelling reasons, to be recorded in writing, else would attract a cost of not less than Rs.500/- per date. The compliance be reported to this Court.
Subject to aforesaid, this application is disposed of.
