Supreme Court Examines Delay in Cases Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Directs Measures for Expedited Trials. The Court addressed procedural issues including mechanical conversion of summary trials to summons trials and mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, forming a committee to recommend solutions for backlog reduction.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu writ petition, addressed the significant backlog and delays in the disposal of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonour of cheques. The Court initiated this proceeding due to concerns over the large number of pending cases, exemplified by a specific Special Leave Petition involving cheques dishonoured in 2005 that had remained unresolved for 16 years. A Division Bench, later expanded to a larger bench, examined the issue with the assistance of appointed amici curiae and responses from various stakeholders including the Union of India, High Courts, police, and banking institutions. The legal framework involved Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, inserted in 1989, and subsequent amendments in 2002 that added Sections 143 to 147 to expedite trials through summary procedures. Despite these measures, pendency persisted, with over 35 lakh cases under Section 138 pending as of 2019, adversely affecting the criminal justice system. The amici curiae identified seven major issues contributing to delays, including service of summons, statutory amendments, summary trials, attachment of bank accounts, applicability of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mediation, and the inherent jurisdiction of Magistrates. During hearings, the Court focused on specific procedural aspects, such as the mechanical conversion of summary trials to summons trials under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for accused residing beyond jurisdiction. The Court analyzed that the conversion of trials without recording reasons defeated the purpose of expedited disposal and directed High Courts to issue practice directions to ensure Magistrates record reasons before such conversion. Additionally, the Court referenced judicial pronouncements on Section 202 to highlight its role in delays. To address broader issues, the Court formed a committee chaired by a former High Court judge to consider suggestions like attachment of bank accounts, pre-summons mediation, and creation of additional courts. The decision involved accepting suggestions from the amici curiae and stakeholders, with directions for committee deliberations and High Court actions to streamline trials and reduce pendency.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Summary Trials - Conversion to Summons Trial - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 143 - The Supreme Court addressed the mechanical conversion of summary trials to summons trials in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which contributes to delays. The Court held that Magistrates must record cogent reasons before such conversion under the second proviso to Section 143 to ensure quick disposal, as mandated by the Act. The High Courts were directed to issue practice directions to enforce this requirement. (Paras 8-9)

B) Criminal Procedure - Inquiry Before Issue of Process - Mandatory Inquiry for Accused Beyond Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 202 - The Court noted the amendment to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, making inquiry mandatory before issuing process when the accused resides beyond the court's jurisdiction, referencing Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. This issue was identified as contributing to delays in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Para 10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Reasons for delay in disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and measures to expedite trials

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court accepted suggestions from the Amici Curiae, directed High Courts to issue practice directions for recording reasons before converting summary trials to summons trials under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and formed a committee to consider further measures including attachment of bank accounts and pre-summons mediation.

Law Points

  • Summary trial procedure under Section 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • mandatory recording of reasons for conversion to summons trial
  • inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973
  • service of summons
  • statutory amendments
  • attachment of bank accounts
  • mediation
  • inherent jurisdiction of Magistrate
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (4) 13

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020

2021-04-16

Chief Justice of India, L. Nageswara Rao, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. K. Parameshwar, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Mr. Ramesh Babu, Dr. Lalit Bhasin

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, Indian Banks’ Association, Mumbai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suo motu writ petition to examine delays in disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Remedy Sought

The Supreme Court sought to identify reasons for delay and implement measures for expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Filing Reason

Concern over large pendency of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, exemplified by a case pending for 16 years

Issues

Reasons for delay in disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Measures to expedite trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Submissions/Arguments

Amici Curiae submitted a preliminary report identifying seven major issues including service of summons, summary trials, and inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Suggestions were made for recording reasons before converting summary trials to summons trials and for electronic service of summons

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrates must record cogent reasons before converting summary trials to summons trials under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to ensure quick disposal and prevent mechanical conversions that contribute to delays.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Amici Curiae has brought to the notice of this Court that summary trials are routinely converted to summons trials in a mechanical manner. The second proviso to Section 143 mandates that the Magistrate has to record an order spelling out the reasons for such conversion.

Procedural History

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5464 of 2016 pertained to dishonour of cheques in 2005, pending for 16 years. The Supreme Court registered a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No.2 of 2020, appointed Amici Curiae, issued notices to stakeholders, received preliminary reports, and after hearings, referred the matter to a larger bench. The Court heard arguments and directed formation of a committee to address delays.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 202, 262, 263, 264, 265
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Examines Delay in Cases Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Directs Measures for Expedited Trials. The Court addressed procedural issues including mechanical conversion of summary trials to summons trials and manda...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Challenging High Court's Setting Aside of Ex Parte Decree in Specific Performance Suit. High Court's Intervention Under Article 227 Upheld as Ex Parte Decree Was Nullity Due to Non-Appointment of Guardia...