AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ronological list of events 7 4 to 8 2.2 Reference to the various orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No.3 of 2020 9 to 13 8 to 19 2.3 Reference to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, the object of Act of 1881 has been detailed 14 & 15 19 to 24 2.4 Summary of factors which weighed with this Court for dismissing the petition 19 26 to 30 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, cheque for an amount of Rs.1,53,02,122/- dated 16.09.2020 was returned on 17.09.2020, with the remarks "Funds Insufficient/Dormant Account" and legal notice was issued on 29.09.2020 and the complaint was instituted on 21.10.2020 and the summoning order was passed on 21.01.2021. It is contended that the petitioner is seeking to challenge the complaint and summoning order solely on the ground that as per the Order dated 08.03.2021, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 (Annexure P-4), the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021,was to be excluded in computing the period under proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and any other law, which prescribed period(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the complainant could be permitted to present the complaint again, notwithstanding that period of one month stipulated under Section 142(b) of the Act of 1881 for filing of such complaint has expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first question was answered in the negative and the said finding would support the plea raised by him in the present case. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book. 6. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 3/ 2020, on 23.03.2020 and the subsequent orders passed prior to 08.03.2021, have not been annexed with the present petition and on a query put by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied copies of the orders dated 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 08.06.2020, 06.07.2020, 10.07.2020, 03.03.2021, 04.03.2021, which are collectively taken on record as Mark "A". Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said orders are all the Orders passed in Suo Motu WP (C) No.3 of 2020 prior to the order dated 08.03.2021. It is submitted that the Order dated 08.03.2021 and the orders passed subsequent thereto, have already been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the cheque (re: para 6 of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 which is at page 12 of the paper book) viii) 21.10.2020 (P-1 Pg 10):- Complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 filed (re: page 13 of the paper book). ix) 21.01.2021(P-2 Pg 22):Summoning Order passed by the JMIC, Chandigarh summoning the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, for 01.04.2021 (re: page 22 of the paper book) x) The petitioner did not appear and thus, warrants including non-bailable warrants issued (re: order dated 05.04.2022 P-3 Pg 23) xi) 08.03.2021 (P-4 Pg 24):- Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said order has been passed after the summoning order dated 21.01.2021 passed in the present case. In the said order, the term "instituting proceedings" has been mentioned and the said term as well as a reading of the order as a whole, would clearly show that the same has been passed in order to give benefit to the persons who have to institute a case/complaint, by extending the period of limitation for filing of the said case. Even in the said o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aint under section 138 and the summoning order dated 21.01.2021 deserves to be quashed/set aside or not. 9. In order to answer the above-said points, it would be relevant to take note of all the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMW (c) no. 3 of 2020 starting from 23.03.2020.On 23.03.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed the following order:- "This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By way of filing this application for directions, the applicant has made the following prayer : "To issue appropriate directions qua (i) arbitration proceedings in relation to section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and (ii) initiation of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;" In view of this Court's earlier order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and taking into consideration the effect of the Corona Virus (COVID 19) and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings. In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Parties have prayed to this Court for extending the time where limitation is to expire during the period when there is a lockdown in view of COVID-19 or the time to perform a particular act is to expire during the lockdown. I.A. No. 49221/2020 -Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Taken on Board. In Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, by our order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020, we ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbiration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. Learned Attorney General has sought a minor modification in the aforesaid orders. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not prescribe a period of limitation but fixes a time to do certain acts, i.e. making an arbitral award within a prescribed time. We, accordingly, direct that the aforesaid orders shall also apply for extension of time limit for passing arbitral award under Section 29A of the said Act. Similarly, Section 23(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for a time period of 6 months for the completion of the statement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, alter such period as it thinks fit. Ordered accordingly. The instant applications are disposed of accordingly. I.A. Nos. 48374/2020 and 48375/2020 List after six weeks. [CHARANJEET KAUR] [INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL] ASSTT.REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSTT. REGISTRAR" A perusal of the above order would show that with respect to the Act of 1881, prayer was made that validity of the cheque be extended but however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the said period has not been prescribed by any statute but it is a period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. It was, however, left to the Reserve Bank of India in its discretion to alter such period. There is nothing on record to suggest that any such period was altered by the Reserve Bank of India nor any such argument has been raised before this Court. Thus, a person who had a cheque in his favour, the validity of which is for a limited period, was required to present the same within the aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.2 OF 2020 In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. O R D E R 1. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5464 of 2016 pertains to dishonour of two cheques on 27.01.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. The dispute has remained pending for the past 16 years. Concerned with the large number of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'the Act') pending at various levels, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (the Chief Justice of India and L. Nageswara Rao, J.) decided to examine the reasons for the delay in disposal of these cases. The Registry was directed to register a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) captioned as "Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881". Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Counsel was requested to assist him. Notices were issued to the Union of India, Registrar Generals of the High Courts, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpowering the Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 10.03.2021. 8) All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered by the Committee. 25. List the matter after eight weeks. Further hearing in this matter will be before 3-Judges Bench. 26. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Counsel, as Amici Curiae. ......................CJI. [ S. A. BOBDE ] ..................................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ] ........................J. [B. R. GAVAI ] ............................J. [ A. S. BOPANNA ] ....................................J. [ S. RAVINDRA BHAT ]" The present petitioner apparently only wants to delay the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retation of statues is to adopt an interpretation which promotes and advances the object sought to be achieved by the legislation, in preference to an interpretation which defeats such object. This Court has in a long line of decisions recognized purposive interpretation as a sound principle for the courts to adopt while interpreting statutory provisions. We may only refer to the decision of this Court in New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST wherein this Court observed: "8. ... It is a recognized rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statue, and which effectuate the object of the legislature. If an expression is susceptible of narrow or technical meaning, as well as a popular meaning the court would be justified in assuming that the legislature used the expression in the sense which would carry out its object and reject that which renders the exercise of its power invalid" 33. Applying the above rule of interpretation and the provisions of Section 138, we have no hesitation in holding that a prosecution based on a second or successive default ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....culcating faith in the efficacy of banking system and its operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transaction. The introduction of the said Chapter was intended to create an atmosphere of faith and reliance on banking system by discouraging people from not honouring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. Section 138 of the Act was enacted to punish those unscrupulous persons who purported to discharge their liability by issuing cheques without really intending to do so. To make the provisions contained in the said Chapter more effective, some more Sections were inserted in the Chapter and some amendments in the existing provisions were made. Though, in this reference, we are not directly concerned with these amendments but they do indicate the anxiety of the Legislature to make the provisions more result oriented. Therefore, while construing the provision, the object of the legislation has to be borne in mind. Xxx xxx 6. As noted hereinbefore, Section 138 of the Act was enacted to punish unscrupulous drawers of cheques who, though purport to discharge their liability by issuing cheque, have no intention of really doing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021 as well as the other orders, clearly indicate that same have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India only to remove difficulties faced by the litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). The same in the understanding of this Court cannot be considered to give any benefit to the accused moreso, when there is no specific direction/observation regarding the same. Even with respect to para 3, where reference has been made to Section 138 proviso (b) and (c), it would be clear that the same also provides for exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 for the purpose of instituting proceedings including the proceedings under section 138 of the Act of 1881 and other laws. The usage of the word "instituting" proceedings in paragraph 3, makes it clear that the same is only for the above purpose and cannot, in the understanding of this Court, be construed to mean that the same would enlarge the time granted to the accused person to make the payment of the cheque amount. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with respect to the dishonour of the cheque, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1881 and for whose benefit the abovesaid orders had been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the Complaint and the Summoning Order dated 21.01.2021, deserve to be upheld. 19. Summarily put, the following factors have weighed with this Court in dismissing the present petition: i) A perusal of the complaint would show that the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 are, prima facie, made out. No argument has been raised challenging the said aspect. ii) The Summoning order was passed on 21.01.2021 and warrants including non-bailable warrants were issued as the petitioner did not join the proceedings and after a delay of 1 year and 3 months from the date of passing of the summoning order, the petitioner has chosen to file the present petition without appearing before the trial court. iii) None of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from 23.03.2020 till 10.01.2022, put any embargo upon the complainant to institute the complaint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... x) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had in another Suo Motu proceedings i.e., Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl) No. 2 of 2020 considered the expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and a 5-Judges Bench, while passing the Order dated 16.04.2021, disposing of the said matter, had considered the delay in the disposal of the cases under Section 138 and had passed several directions (Order reproduced hereinabove). The present petitioner apparently only wants to delay the final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 as even in case, the sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then also, at best, the present proceedings would be set aside and the complainant would be given the liberty to file a fresh complaint and it is not that the petitioner would be absolved of his liability under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. (re:YogendraPartap Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner). Moreover, the present petition has been filed after a delay of 1 year and 3 months from the date of the summoning order after non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. xi) E....