Writ relief and cheque dishonour jurisdiction turn on disputed facts and valid trial before special judicial magistrates.

Writ jurisdiction was found unsuitable for resolving a cheque dispute turned on rival factual claims about whether the cheques were issued towards liability or stolen and misused, because such issues required evidence in the criminal proceedings. The note also states that temporary additional courts presided over by retired judicial officers could validly try cheque dishonour cases, as a Special Judicial Magistrate appointed for specified matters is competent under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Negotiable Instruments Act only bars courts inferior to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate. The challenge to the forum's authority was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the dispute involved contested questions of fact concerning the cheque transaction and alleged theft. (ii) Whether the creation of temporary additional courts manned by retired judicial officers, and their trial of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was unlawful or without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable where the dispute involved contested questions of fact concerning the cheque transaction and alleged theft.

Analysis: The relief sought depended on rival versions as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of liability or were stolen and misused. Such issues required evidence and adjudication in the pending criminal proceedings, not determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioners. The writ court declined to examine the disputed factual controversy.

Issue (ii): Whether the creation of temporary additional courts manned by retired judicial officers, and their trial of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was unlawful or without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appointment mechanism was examined in the light of Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits the High Court, on request of the State Government, to confer on persons who hold or have held government posts the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first or second class for specified classes of cases. The court treated the retired judicial officers as Special Judicial Magistrates for limited categories of matters. It further held that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not require trial only by a serving Magistrate of lower cadre; rather, it excludes courts inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The additional courts were therefore not without authority to try cheque dishonour cases.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioners. The impugned arrangement and the trial before the additional court were held valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the temporary additional courts and to the pending cheque dishonour proceedings was rejected, and the writ court found no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A person appointed as a Special Judicial Magistrate under Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may validly try a class of cases assigned by the High Court, and such a forum is not incompetent under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely because the presiding officer is a retired judicial officer.

---