Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1152 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - applicability of maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus - violation of the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The incorporation of Section 143 Negotiable Instruments Act was within an object of speedy disposal of cases resulting in recommendation of simplified procedure of trial of the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e. summary trial. The incorporation of Section 143 to 147 was aimed at early disposal of cases in simplified procedure and more particularly to do away the stages and process in a regular criminal trial that normally cause inordinate delay in its conclusion and to make a trial procedure as expeditious and possible without in any way compromising with the right of the accused for a fair trial. There is no straitjacket formula classifying a case to be tried as a summary trial or as a summons case in offences falling under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The law provided therefore is so flexible that it is up to the prudent judicial mind to try the case summarily or otherwise. Examining the case from another perspective, Section 461 CrPC deals with irregularities which vitiate proceedings. The order of the Magistrate to try the case as a summons case is not an irregularity that would vitiate the proceedings. Hence, even though the proviso to Section 143 contemplates affording of hearing to the parties before directing a case to be tried as summons case, however, non-compliance thereof does not vitiate the proceedings. Apparently the said proviso contemplates a situation where the order to try the case as summons case is passed by the Magistrate after commencement of the trial and where certain witnesses have been recorded - The delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court has not been satisfactorily explained. Besides, apart from the apprehension that petitioner is likely to be sentenced for an imprisonment beyond one year, the same cannot be said to be a prejudice caused to an accused. The said discretion is yet to be exercised by judicial prudence and is not a judgment as regards conclusion of guilt of an accused. It does not thus amount to determination of any right of an individual or to have occasioned a prejudice to him. A prejudice has to be established and an apprehension of higher sentence is not a prejudice since sentencing or conviction are to be awarded after following the procedure prescribed in law and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. The inherent power vested in a High Court under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Such a power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The very fact that statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded in the month of December 2015 would be sufficient to dismiss the present petition. It would rather be expedient that the trial in question is concluded at the earliest. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed being without any merit and being an attempt to delay the proceedings at a highly belated stage when the trial was at its fag end and statement under Section 313 CrPC had already been recorded - Petition dismissed.
|