1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
- Whether the trial court is bound to conduct and conclude the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of filing the complaint, as mandated by statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
- The applicability and enforcement of procedural directions issued by the Apex Court for speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
- The extent of the trial court's obligation to follow the directions issued by higher courts regarding the conduct and timeline of trials under the N.I. Act.
- The permissibility and scope of coercive measures under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to ensure the presence of the accused during trial.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Obligation to conduct and conclude trial under Section 138 N.I. Act expeditiously
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provide that trials under the N.I. Act should be conducted on a day-to-day basis and concluded within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The Apex Court judgments cited include Indian Bank Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021), which emphasize the necessity of speedy disposal of cases under Section 138.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that the statutory mandate under Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act is clear and mandatory in nature, requiring expeditious trial and conclusion of cases. The Court emphasized that the trial court must adhere to these timelines unless there is a legal impediment.
Key evidence and findings: The complaint case in question was filed in 2014 and had remained pending for an inordinate period without conclusion. The delay was contrary to the statutory provisions and the directions issued by the Apex Court for speedy trials.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory provisions and Apex Court directions to the facts, finding that the trial court was duty-bound to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the present order.
Treatment of competing arguments: Although not explicitly detailed, the Court implicitly rejected any justification for delay or technicalities that may have been raised by the trial court or parties, underscoring the need to avoid unnecessary procedural delays.
Conclusions: The Court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial under Section 138 N.I. Act expeditiously, strictly adhering to statutory provisions and Apex Court directions.
Issue 2: Applicability and enforcement of Apex Court directions for speedy disposal of Section 138 N.I. Act cases
Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Apex Court in Indian Bank Association (2014) laid down detailed procedural directions for expeditious disposal of Section 138 cases, including scrutiny of complaints, issuance of summons, fixing short dates, and conducting evidence within three months. The 2021 Apex Court judgment further supplemented these directions, recommending practice directions to Magistrates and Trial Courts for efficient conduct of trials and inquiries, including the use of affidavits and limiting inquiry where appropriate.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court underscored that these directions are binding and must be followed by all criminal courts dealing with Section 138 cases. The Court noted that the directions are "worthy of emulation" and are intended to avoid unnecessary delays and technicalities that prolong trials.
Key evidence and findings: The Court referred to the detailed paragraphs (22-24) of the Indian Bank Association judgment and the summary of directions in the 2021 judgment, highlighting their relevance and binding nature on trial courts.
Application of law to facts: The Court mandated the trial court to implement these directions in the pending trial, including day-to-day conduct, expeditious examination of witnesses, and pragmatic issuance of summons.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court did not entertain arguments that could undermine the implementation of these directions, emphasizing the overriding objective of expeditious disposal.
Conclusions: The Court held that the trial court must strictly follow the Apex Court's procedural directions to ensure speedy and effective disposal of Section 138 cases.
Issue 3: Use of coercive measures under Cr.P.C. to ensure presence of accused
Relevant legal framework: The Criminal Procedure Code provides for coercive measures such as issuance of warrants and other processes to secure the attendance of accused persons during trial.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed the trial court not to hesitate in invoking coercive measures under Cr.P.C. to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, thereby facilitating expeditious disposal.
Application of law to facts: Given the prolonged pendency of the case and possible absence or non-cooperation of the accused, the Court emphasized the necessity of employing such measures.
Conclusions: The Court authorized and encouraged the trial court to use coercive tools under Cr.P.C. to maintain the trial's momentum and prevent undue delay.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
- "From the observations of the Apex Court as well as analysis of Sections 138 & 143 of N.I. Act, it is expedient that all the proceedings under N.I. Act should be concluded expeditiously without going into unnecessary technicality."
- The Court quoted extensively from the Apex Court's Indian Bank Association judgment, including:
"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."
"23.5. 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 Court held that the trial court is "directed to conclude the trial... preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with statutory provision of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, if there is no legal impediment."
- The Court emphasized that "for ensuring the presence of accused during trial, it should not hesitate to take coercive measures provided under Cr.P.C."
- The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory timelines and procedural directions issued by the Apex Court must be strictly followed to prevent delay and ensure justice in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
9911796707
Advanced Search 
