The court mandated the expeditious trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines and procedures for timely justice.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed to direct the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Hasanpur, District-Amroha to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No.654 of 2019, Bhure Singh v. Haji Istekar Ali, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'), Police Station-Hasanpur, District-Amroha, within a stipulated period.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that though this complaint under the Act, 1881 was filed in the year 2019, but the trial could not yet be concluded. It is further submitted that as per Section 143(2) of Act, 1881 the trial for the offence under the Act, 1881 should be conducted on day to day basis and it is further provided under section 143(3) of the Act, 1881 that the trial should be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590, has issued direction for expeditious disposal of the cases under the Act, 1881. Paragraph Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgement are being quoted as under:

"22. We notice, considering all those aspects, few High Courts of the country have laid down certain procedures for speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reference, in this connection, may be made to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Mannalal Khandelwal, Indo International Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 44 Civil CC and Harischandra Biyani v. Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. (2006) 4 MhLJ 381, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Magma Leasing Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others (2007) 3 CHN 574 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Agarwal v. State and another (2010) ILR 6 Delhi 610.

Directions

23. Many of the directions given by the various High Courts, in our view, are worthy of emulation by the Criminal Courts all over the country dealing with cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the following directions are being given :-

23.1. The Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

23.2. The MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. The court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back unserved, immediate follow-up action be taken.

23.3. The court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, the court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

23.4. The court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross-examination.

23.5. The court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in the court. The witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for