Delhi High Court Calls For Expeditious Disposal Of Cheque Bounce Cases, Says Cross-Examination Should Take Place Same Day
The Delhi High Court has stressed the need for expeditious disposal of cheque bouncing cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that once a witness is available, his examination or cross-examination ought to take place on the same date.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that there is a “huge pendency” of cheque bouncing cases across the national capital...
The Delhi High Court has stressed the need for expeditious disposal of cheque bouncing cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observing that once a witness is available, his examination or cross-examination ought to take place on the same date.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that there is a “huge pendency” of cheque bouncing cases across the national capital and said that parties as well as lawyers are expected to extend full cooperation in ensuring their expeditious disposal.
“Once the witness is available, the examination/cross-examination ought to take place on the same date,” the Court observed, adding that requests for repeated adjournments have consistently been deprecated.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by one Lalit Pandey challenging an order rejecting his application under Section 311 of CrPC seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination.
The right to cross-examine the complainant was closed on March 30, 2019. Pandey's counsel submitted that he was held up in another court on the said date.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav which cautioned that witnesses cannot be recalled routinely merely on the ground that cross-examination was not properly conducted.
The Supreme Court had held that although ensuring a fair trial is the duty of the court, recall of a witness is not a matter of course and that such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, while balancing the need to prevent failure of justice against hardship to witnesses and delay in trial.
Justice Kaurav noted that the matter was pending since 2018 and found no sufficient ground to recall the witness who had already been examined.
”There is a huge pendency of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cases across Delhi. The parties as well as the learned counsel are expected to extend full co-operation in expeditious disposal of such matters,” the Court said.
“Bearing in mind the fact that the matter is pending since 2018, the Court finds no sufficient ground to recall the witness, who has already been examined. Accordingly, the petition fails….,” it added.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Title: LALIT PANDEY v. SANJAY AGARWAL