TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....11.2014 drawn on UBI, Boxanagar Branch for an amount of Rs. 7,95,000/- only against his account No.1779210000091 in favour of the complainant towards the price of rods. The complainant-appellant herein on 22.12.2014 presented the cheque for encashment to his bank, namely, SBI, ONGC Colony Branch, Agartala but the said cheque was returned by the banker of the accused-respondent, namely, UBI, Boxanagar Branch with the return memo dated 23.12.2014 with endorsement of "closure of account". 4. Statutory ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act were complied with by way of issuance of demand notice. Due to non-payment of the amount mentioned in cheque as aforestated, the complainant-appellant had lodged the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Section 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act before the competent Court. 5. The accused-respondent had entered his appearance and contested the suit. Charges were framed against him. The complainant-appellant had adduced evidence as P.W.-1. The cheque was proved before the learned Court. The return memo also was proved under Section 146 of the N.I. Act. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he pleade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cross-examination of P.W.-1, wherein he deposed that "My transaction dealing with Farid Miah since first part of 2013, till 30.10.2014 I had no transaction on credit with Farid Miah" 10. On the basis of this statement in the cross- examination, Mr. De, learned counsel has tried to persuade this Court that the date of issuing of the cheque was on 30.11.2014 when there was no transaction. 11. I find no force in the submission of Mr. De, learned counsel for the reason that P.W.-1 has categorically stated that on 01.11.14, 04.11.14, 07.11.2014, 09.11.2014 & 18.11.14 he had no dealing with Farid Miah for an amount of Rs. 7,95,000/- in total on credit. From this statement, it is clear that till 30.10.2014 there was dealing with Farid Miah on credit, but, there was no transaction on credit on the subsequent dates commencing from 01.11.2014 to 18.11.2014 for total amount of Rs. 7,95,000/-. 12. P.W.1, the complainant-appellant, Utpal Majumder during his examination-in-chief had pressed into service all the invoices substantiating the fact that he supplied rods which were received by the accused- respondent. 13. As I said earlier, the learned trial Court has also affirmed the point ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, namely, sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. 2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and make recommendations as to what changes were needed to effectively achieve the purpose of that section. 3. The recommendations of the Working Group along with other representations from various institutions and organisations were examined by the Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur of cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects." (emphasis added) 19. Though, in these appeals, we are mainly concerned with the provisions of section 145, it would be useful here to take a look at all the five sections introduced by the 2002 amendment. "143. Power of court to try cases summarily.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials: Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees; Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved. 147. Offences to be compoundable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable." 20. It may be noted that the provisions of sections 143, 144, 145 and 147 expressly depart from and override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the main body of adjective law for criminal trials. The provisions of section 146 similarly depart from the principles of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 143 makes it possible for the complaints under section 138 of the Act to be tried in the summary manner, except, of course, for the relatively small number of cases where the Magistrate feels that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily 24. Section 146, making a major departur....