Supreme Court issues norms for early disposal of cheque bounce cases, asks Centre to amend laws

The apex court directed all the high courts across the country to issue guidelines for trial courts to deal with cheque bounce cases

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions for speedy disposal of cheque bounce cases, clogging the justice delivery system, by recommending amendment to the law to allow one trial in multiple offences, if acts were committed within 12 months.

A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde directed all the High Courts to issue guidelines for trial courts for speedy disposal of cheque bounce cases. About 40 lakh such cases are pending in the trial courts.

As more than half of the cases were pending due to absence of the accused, the top court said the evidence in cheque bounce cases can now be tendered by filing affidavits in suitable cases, without insisting for physical examination of the witnesses.

The bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna and S Ravindra Bhat, issued the directions in a Suo Motu case registered in March, last year as 'Expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 (cheque dishonour) under the N I Act.

In its orders passed after hearing amici curiae senior advocate Sidharth Luthra and advocate K Parameshwar, and other counsel the bench said, "We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Negotiable Instruments Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in the law."

The court noted a committee headed by Justice R C Chavan, former Bombay High Court judge, appointed earlier, will consider the issues not dealt by it.

Among other directions, it said the High Courts can issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial.

The bench also reiterated that there was no inherent power of trial courts to review or recall the issue of summons. However, this does not affect the power of the trial court to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint, the court added, maintaining that 'Adalat Prasad' and 'Subramanium Sethuraman' cases have given correct interpretation of law.