Thread by @barandbench

Five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI SA Bobde to consider its suo motu cases dealing with expeditious trial of criminal cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and extension of limitation period owing to #COVID19
#SupremeCourt

Bench assembles; Hearing begins. Amicus Curiae Siddharth Luthra making submissions

Luthra says first issue he will address is regarding mechanical conversion of trial from summary trial to summons trial.

Luthra refers to Chapter 21 of CrPC and Section 143 of NI Act.

#SupremeCourt #NIAct

By virtue of amendment to Section 143 of NI Act, these trials have to be done summarily: Luthra

#SupremeCourt #NIAct

Luthra urges Supreme Court to formulate appropriate
practice directions which can be issued by the respective High Courts
to Magistrates to ensure application of mind before converting summary trial to summons trial.

#NIAct #SupremeCourt

Court refers to the words "if it thinks fit" under Section 145(2) of NI Act which vests magistrate the discretion to opt for summons trial.

Luthra says he agrees and that is why he was asking for practice directions so that there is no mechanical conversion to summons trial.

Court expresses skepticism saying it will be interfering with the magistrate's powers.

Court discussing how judges can be sensitised and trained on this to which Solicitor General also agrees.

Luthra maintains that Section 145(2) should be read along with Section 143 and summary trial should be the norm in NI cases.

We are considering two options; Bar courts from entertaining any complaint regarding non compliance with Sections 143 and 145 of NI Act because it leads to stall in proceedings.

However, option can be given to raise that ground in appeal, says CJI SA Bobde.

#NIAct

We are of the view that Sections 143 and 145 are procedural in nature and non compliance with the same cannot lead to stalling of trial: CJI Bobde

We are inclined towards post litigation mediation (in NI Act cases): Supreme Court

Next issue is regarding dropping of proceedings or discharge: Luthra

Luthra says the issue of applicability of Section 202 CrpC to Section 138 offences needs to be judicially settled as there is a divergence of views among High Courts on this

Section 202 deal with postponement of issue of process. After an amendment to it, now an inquiry is must for determining whether there was sufficient grounds for issuing process in cases where accused resides beyond the jurisdiction

Luthra referring to how accused will have to be summoned all the way from his place of residence to the jurisdiction of the court where beneficiary presents cheque.

When multiple cheques are issued and presented in different jurisdictions, this becomes a problem

Can a cheque be presented for payment by payee in a branch where I do not have an account: SC to RBI.

RBI says in core banking system, cheque can be deposited in branch even outside State but money will come only to the branch in which payee has account.

#NIAct #SupremeCourt

Court rises for lunch. Hearing will resume at 2. Court to hear Solicitor General on Art. 247 and Attorney General on extension of limitation

#NIAct #SupremeCourt

Hearing resumes

#SupremeCourt

Luthra: Under Evidence Act, there is no direction for witnesses to file affidavits. There needs to be a judicial decision in this regard.

Luthra: When there are absconders, the value of the cheque or double the value can be attached. Else the property can be attached too. But when there are none, double the amount of cheque can be attached.

Luthra: reads from the SC decision in Vani Agro Enterprises v State of Gujarat which held that there is no CrPC provision to consolidate cases out of single notice.

CJI: Its just a decision

Luthra: trial court is bound by it

Justice Bhat: If we lay down a law as 5 judges saying section 219 covers only one transaction then there are parties will be affected

Luthra: Enabling provision of Section 220 cannot be nullified.

Luthra: In a summons trials, Section 258 is not applicable to the complainant. This needs to be looked into

CJI: please tell us which section of CrPC bars a review in criminal cases

Luthra: Its Section 362 (judgment in final orders) My Lord

CJI: Section 362 bars alteration to judgment

SC: other than 362, is there anything else which lays down power of recall

Luthra: There is nothing else

CJI: Does General Clauses Act apply to courts?

CJI: It applies to enactments in India

CJI: Suppose court issues summons to sons instead of father. In India we write son of etc. Now if the court wants to recall the summon and issue it to father. Now this is not judgment. This alteration cannot be under Section 362

Luthra: Once notices are framed under Section 221 it has proceed to trial under Section 251 crpc.

CJI: Mr Solicitor General we have asked you to be present in this court because of the possibility of establishing additional courts under Article 247?

CJI: NI Act relates to Union list. If a law is made, judicial impact assessment is done. When we were on Bihar, it was informed that HC is flooded with thousands of applications under the liquor prohibitionn act

CJI: prima facie we are of the view that there is a power coupled with duty to create additional courts. The pendency that is rising due to NI Act is grotesque. You can make a temporary law so that you say these courts exist for a particular period of time.

CJI: you can appoint retired judges or experts.

SG: I have discussed with bureaucratic high level officials and it is a welcome move. We need to have a wider discussion. Internally we have to work out the nitty grities.

CJI: We will slot this bench next week and we will assemble for five minutes so that you make a statement. But we are holding it is a power coupled with duty to create additional courts. We will proceed and we would like in first instance to come from govt.

SG: Nodal agency for service of summons may have to be done from the state level

Luthra: It does not preclude the Centre

CJI: we need some former judges in the committee which was dictated yersterday

SG: Let me reply by March 10

CJI: Okay

CJI: suppose person paid by cheque and if bounced. In the intimation that cheque is bounded the person should get details of the drawer of the cheque. So that an immediate complaint is made and summons served. Veil of confidentiality can be lifted if there is a violation of law

Advocate appearing for Bank states that banks usually do not disclose such information unless an order is there from an adjudicating authority

CJI: don't worry about the law. We will order accordingly

CJI: we appreciate the positive response of Solicitor General

The five judge bench clarifies that the extension of limitation suo motu case will be taken up by a three judges bench

#SupremeCourt