Key Holdings on Expeditious Trial of Section 138 NI Act Cases Summary Trial Procedure: In summary trials where the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate need only record the substance of evidence and deliver a judgment with a brief statement of reasons for findings. (!) Conversion from Summary to Summons Trial: Conversion of Section 138 complaints from summary to summons trial must not be mechanical; Magistrates must record reasons if converting under the second proviso to Section 143 NI Act, as the provision aims for quick disposal. High Courts should issue practice directions requiring such reasons. (!) (!) (!) Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC: Section 202(2) CrPC does not apply to Section 138 complaints regarding oath examination of witnesses; complainant and witnesses' evidence can be on affidavit. Magistrates may examine documents alone in suitable cases for sufficiency of grounds, especially if accused is outside jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) (!) Joint Trials under Sections 219/220 CrPC: Multiple Section 138 offences within 12 months cannot exceed three per trial under Section 219 unless part of the same transaction (proximity of time/place, unity of purpose/design, continuity of action) under Section 220. Recommend legislative amendment to allow one trial for multiple such offences notwithstanding Section 219. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Service of Summons: For cheques part of the same transaction, service in one Section 138 complaint before the same court constitutes deemed service for all related complaints. High Courts should issue practice directions to Trial Courts accordingly. (!) (!) Inherent Powers and Recall of Summons: No inherent power for Trial Courts to review/recall issuance of process in Section 138 cases; Section 258 CrPC inapplicable to complaint-based summons cases under Section 143 NI Act. Exception under Section 322 CrPC if lack of jurisdiction. Consider legislative amendment for recall power. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Pendency Reduction Measures: High Courts urged to refer pending Section 138 revisions/appeals to mediation. Committee to consider other issues like summons service reforms, bank account attachment, additional courts. (!) (!) (!) Statutory Interpretation Principle: Courts cannot add words to or read words into statutes; duty is to interpret and apply law as enacted, without altering it for perceived justice. (!)

In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N. I. ACT 1881 vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 202

S. A. BOBDE, NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N. I. ACT 1881 – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, (A.C), K. Parameshwar, (A.C.), M. V. Mukunda, A. Sregurupriya, Rajat Mathur, Anmol Kheta, Sheezan Hashmi, Akshat Kumar, Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG, Vikramjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG., Neela Kedar Gokhle, P. V. Yogeshwaran, Divyansh H. Rathi, B. V. Balaram Das, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Manisha Ambwani, G.S. Makker, Saumya Sinha, Neeraj, AAG, Piyush Beriwal, Dr. Monika Gusain, Aviral Saxena, Vishwa Pal Singh, Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Amitabh Sinha, Shrey Sharma, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Vishal Banshal, Garima Prashad, AAG, Abhinav Agrawal, Harpreet Singh Gupta, Manish Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, Raghvendra Kumar, Standing Counsel/Advocate, Anand Kumar Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Naresh K. Sharma, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Sweena Nair, Abhimanyu Tewari, Garima Prashad, Sr. Advocate, Abhinav Agrawal, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, M. Yogesh Kanna, Raja Rajeshwaran S, Aditya Chadha, Uma Prasuna Bachu, Jaspreet Gogia, Mandakini Singh, Karanvir Gogia, Shivangi Singhal, Ashima Mandla, Yashvardhan, Apoorv Shukla, Smita Kant, Ishita Farsaiya, Prabhleen Kaur, Garima Prashad, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Shuvodeep Roy, KumarAnurag Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel Anando Mukherjee, Tulika Mukherjee, Vinay Garg, Upendra Mishra, Ashish Ranjan, Shuvodeep Roy, Kunal Chatterji, Maitrayee Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Gopal Jha, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Applicant-in-person Romy Chacko, Shakthi Chand Jaidwal, Ashwin Romy, Satish Pandey, Salim Ansari, Sameer Parekh, R. Nedumaran, Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur Advocate, Siddhartha Thakur, Vipasha Singh, Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Jamnesh Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar, Eliza Bar, Pai Amit, P. H. Parekh, Sr. Advocate, Sameer Parekh, Kshatrashal Raj, Tanya Chaudhry, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Nitika Pandey, For M/s Parekh & Co., Siddhesh Kotwal, Bansuri Swaraj, Divyansh Tiwari, Ana Upadhyay, Manya Hasija, Nirnimesh Dube, V. N. Raghupathy, Rachana Srivastava, Rachna Gandhi, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, For M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., Shree Pal Singh, Abhimanyu Jhamba, Ashish Jhamb, Samir Ali Khan, Pragati Neekhra, Deepanwita Priyanka, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Apoorv Kurup, Nidhi Mittal, Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, Shweta Mohta, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Advocate, V.K. Biju, Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Abhay Pratap Singh, Shaji George, Rubina Jawed, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, P. V. Yogeswaran, Christi Jain, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Apratim Animesh Thakur, Prachi Hasija, Arjun Garg, Shrutika Garg, Radhika Gautam, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Parth Awasthi, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Aswathi M.K., Ramesh Babu M. R., Manisha Singh, Nisha Sharma, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Anando Mukherjee, Vinay Garg, Kunal Chatterji, Applicant-in-person Gopal Jha, Romy Chacko, Satish Pandey, Sameer Parekh, Mahesh Thakur, R. Nedumaran, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Himanshu Shekhar, Pai Amit, Nirnimesh Dube, M/S. Parekh & Co., V. N. Raghupathy, Shibashish Misra, Rachana Srivastava, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Samir Ali Khan, Shree Pal Singh, Pragati Neekhra, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Apoorv Kurup, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Uttara Babbar, V. K. Biju, P. V. Yogeswaran, K. Enatoli Sema, Christi Jain, Radhika Gautam, Arjun Garg, G. Indira, Aswathi M.k., Abhishek Atrey, Ramesh Babu M. R., Dr. Monika Gusain, Manisha Ambwani, Vishwa Pal Singh, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Manish Kumar, Shubhranshu Padhi, Narendra Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, Anupam Raina, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, V. G. Pragasam, Abhimanyu Tewari, Jaspreet Gogia, M. Yogesh Kanna, Apoorv Shukla, Garima Prashad, Avijit Mani Tripathi, B. V. Balaram Das, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Sachin Patil, G. Prakash, Shuvodeep Roy, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Key Holdings on Expeditious Trial of Section 138 NI Act Cases

Summary Trial Procedure: In summary trials where the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate need only record the substance of evidence and deliver a judgment with a brief statement of reasons for findings. (!)
Conversion from Summary to Summons Trial: Conversion of Section 138 complaints from summary to summons trial must not be mechanical; Magistrates must record reasons if converting under the second proviso to Section 143 NI Act, as the provision aims for quick disposal. High Courts should issue practice directions requiring such reasons. (!) (!) (!)
Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC: Section 202(2) CrPC does not apply to Section 138 complaints regarding oath examination of witnesses; complainant and witnesses' evidence can be on affidavit. Magistrates may examine documents alone in suitable cases for sufficiency of grounds, especially if accused is outside jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Joint Trials under Sections 219/220 CrPC: Multiple Section 138 offences within 12 months cannot exceed three per trial under Section 219 unless part of the same transaction (proximity of time/place, unity of purpose/design, continuity of action) under Section 220. Recommend legislative amendment to allow one trial for multiple such offences notwithstanding Section 219. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Service of Summons: For cheques part of the same transaction, service in one Section 138 complaint before the same court constitutes deemed service for all related complaints. High Courts should issue practice directions to Trial Courts accordingly. (!) (!)
Inherent Powers and Recall of Summons: No inherent power for Trial Courts to review/recall issuance of process in Section 138 cases; Section 258 CrPC inapplicable to complaint-based summons cases under Section 143 NI Act. Exception under Section 322 CrPC if lack of jurisdiction. Consider legislative amendment for recall power. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Pendency Reduction Measures: High Courts urged to refer pending Section 138 revisions/appeals to mediation. Committee to consider other issues like summons service reforms, bank account attachment, additional courts. (!) (!) (!)
Statutory Interpretation Principle: Courts cannot add words to or read words into statutes; duty is to interpret and apply law as enacted, without altering it for perceived justice. (!)

ORDER

1. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5464 of 2016 pertains to dishonour of two cheques on 27.01.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. The dispute has remained pending for the past 16 years. Concerned with the large number of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter the Act) pending at various levels, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (the Chief Justice of India and L. Nageswara Rao, J.) decided to examine the reasons for the delay in disposal of these cases. The Registry was directed to register a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) captioned as "Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881". Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Counsel was requested to assist him.

Notices were issued to the Union of India, Registrar Generals of the High Courts, Director Generals of Police of the States and Union Territories, Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority, Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banks' Association, Mumbai as the representative of banking institutions.

2. The learned Amici Curiae submitted a preliminary report

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 202

S. A. BOBDE, NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHATIn Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N. I. ACT 1881 – AppellantVersus. – Respondent

Key Holdings on Expeditious Trial of Section 138 NI Act Cases

Cases Referred (9)

S. A. BOBDE, NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N. I. ACT 1881 – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent