Summons-case procedure under cheque dishonour law excludes alteration of charge and discharge provisions from warrant cases.

A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is tried as a summons case, or in suitable situations as a summary trial, so no formal charge is framed. In that procedural setting, Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and the accused is only informed of the particulars of the offence. Section 216, which permits alteration or addition of a charge before judgment, applies only where a charge already exists, and Section 245 applies to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. Accordingly, an application seeking alteration of charge and discharge is not maintainable in such proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could invoke Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to alter a charge and seek discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are tried as a summons case, or in appropriate situations as a summary trial, and therefore no charge is framed. In a summons case, Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies, under which only the particulars of the offence are stated to the accused. Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operates only where a charge already exists and can be altered or added to before judgment. Likewise, Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, which was not the procedural category of the case at hand.

Conclusion: The application seeking alteration of charge and discharge was not legally maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution is tried as a summons case and no charge is framed, provisions governing alteration of charge and discharge in warrant cases do not apply.

---