Cheque dishonour trials must be expedited, with affidavit evidence replacing oral examination-in-chief and cross-examination preserved.

Cheque dishonour complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be handled expeditiously, with pragmatic service of summons, limited adjournments, day-to-day trial and close monitoring; once the accused is secured, such cases should ordinarily be concluded within six months. Section 145(1) also permits the complainant to give evidence by affidavit, and that affidavit operates as examination-in-chief. The accused retains the right to summon and cross-examine the deponent under Section 145(2), but the complainant is not required to enter the witness box again for oral examination-in-chief when affidavit evidence has been filed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are required to be dealt with expeditiously and, once the accused is secured, ordinarily concluded within six months; (ii) Whether, in view of Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must still enter the witness box in respect of matters stated on affidavit.

Issue (i): Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are required to be dealt with expeditiously and, once the accused is secured, ordinarily concluded within six months.

Analysis: Sections 138 to 142 were introduced to enhance the credibility of negotiable instruments and to ensure that cheque dishonour complaints do not frustrate commercial transactions by prolonged pendency. The legislative object would be defeated if such matters were allowed to remain pending for years. The Court therefore emphasised pragmatic service of summons, avoidance of adjournments, day-to-day trial, and close monitoring of the progress of these complaints. It was held that once the presence of the accused is secured, the complaint should ordinarily be disposed of within six months.

Conclusion: Yes. Complaints under Section 138 are to be tried expeditiously, and ordinarily disposed of within six months from the date the accused is secured.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must still enter the witness box in respect of matters stated on affidavit.

Analysis: Section 145(1) permits the complainant to give evidence by affidavit, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The affidavit is to be treated as examination-in-chief, and Section 145(2) preserves the right of the accused or prosecution to summon and examine the deponent for cross-examination if required. The provision was construed as enabling affidavit evidence to replace oral examination-in-chief, thereby reducing delay without curtailing the right of cross-examination.

Conclusion: No. The complainant is not required to atively enter the witness box for examination-in-chief where evidence has been filed by affidavit under Section 145(1).

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part, with binding directions issued to streamline cheque dishonour trials through affidavit evidence, strict control of adjournments, and time-bound disposal after service on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, affidavit evidence of the complainant is a valid substitute for oral examination-in-chief, and such complaints must be managed through an expeditious, time-bound procedure consistent with the legislative object of ensuring prompt adjudication.

---