The court upheld the transferee court's authority to take fresh cognizance in cheque dishonour cases, affirming the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 while leaving specific evidence issues for the trial court's determination.

Order

12/01/2024

1. By way of instant criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has challenged the order 09.06.2016 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) No.2, Ajmer, taking cognizance against petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of two cheques i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- each so also the challenge has been made to the order dated 20.06.2023 dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition No.59/2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer, and affirming the cognizance order dated 09.06.2016.

2. Counsel for petitioner made submission that the cognizance for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act had already been taken in the present complaint vide order dated 27.02.2015 by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act), Bikaner. Later on, the complaint was transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act), Ajmer and it was not desirable/necessary for the transferee Court to take cognizance afresh. In addition, he has also raised a point that the return memo dated 01.08.2013 of the bank, in respect of both cheques is not duly stamped and bears only the signature of concerned personnel. Therefore, on these two points, proceedings of present criminal complaint be quashed after setting aside impugned orders dated 09.06.2016 and 20.06.2023.

3. Having considered the contention of counsel for petitioner and from perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the present complaint was filed by respondent No.2-complainant initially before the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act), Bikaner, however, for one or another reason because of jurisdictional issue, same has been transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act), Ajmer.

4. In such factual backdrop, taking afresh cognizance by the transferee Court vide order dated 09.06.2016 does not lead to any infirmity much less illegality to declare the order of cognizance as without jurisdiction or leads to any miscarriage of justice with the petitioner. As far as having no stamp on the return memo of the bank, the Revisional Court in its order dated 20.06.2023 has observed that the return memo is prima facie signed by the concerned Officer of bank. However, this Court deems it just and proper to leave the issue open and the point of the return memo of bank being signed out without stamp/seal of bank, shall be considered by the trial court, at the time of deciding the present criminal complaints, finally on merits.

5. It has been urged by counsel for petitioner that since the present criminal complaint is pending since 2016 at the stage of evidence of complainant and due to prolonged trial of present complaint, the legitimate right of petitioner-accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated, therefore, some directions be issued to expedite the trial. In that respect, it is suffice to observe that the trial court shall make an endeavor to expedite the trial and will not allow casual and unwarranted adjournment to either of parties. It is expected from both parties that they will cooperate with the trial court to expedite the trial.

6. With the aforesaid observations, without interfering with impugned orders, the instant petition stands disposed of.