MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Expeditious Justice is Paramount : Allahabad High Court Directs Speedy Conclusion of Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Allahabad High Court mandates six-month deadline for trial completion in a 2021 complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

In a significant order aimed at ensuring speedy justice, the Allahabad High Court has directed the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Basti, to expedite the trial of a 2021 cheque bounce case. The directive, issued by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, underscores the necessity of adhering to the statutory mandate of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), which calls for the swift conclusion of trials within six months.

Emphasis on Expeditious Trial: The court noted the prolonged duration of the trial, highlighting that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed in 2021 but had yet to be concluded. Justice Deshwal referenced the statutory requirement for day-to-day trials and their completion within six months. "The trial for the offence under the Act should be conducted expeditiously, ensuring justice is not delayed," Justice Deshwal emphasized.

Guidelines from the Supreme Court: The judgment extensively cited the Supreme Court's directives in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021). These rulings outline procedures for ensuring the swift disposal of cases under the N.I. Act. Justice Deshwal reiterated, "The directions given by the Apex Court must be strictly followed to prevent undue delays in the justice delivery system."

Legal Reasoning: The court's decision was rooted in the analysis of the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's mandates. Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act necessitate day-to-day hearings and trial completion within six months from the complaint filing date. Justice Deshwal remarked, "Non-compliance with these statutory timelines undermines the legislative intent and the judicial directives aimed at expediting trials."

Justice Deshwal underscored the importance of the Supreme Court's guidelines: "The procedures established by the Apex Court are designed to ensure that cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not subjected to unnecessary delays, thereby upholding the principle of swift justice."

Decision: The Allahabad High Court's directive to expedite the trial of Complaint Case No. 23545 of 2021 reflects a commitment to ensuring timely justice in cheque bounce cases. By mandating the trial's conclusion within six months, the court reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and Supreme Court guidelines. This judgment is expected to set a precedent for the expeditious handling of similar cases, thereby strengthening the legal framework for the timely resolution of financial disputes.

Date of Decision: 28th May 2024

Harish Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another

 

Latest Legal News