Landmark Ruling on Section 145 NI Act: Supreme Court Clarifies Rights in Cheque Bounce Trials – M/S Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010)
The Supreme Court in M/S Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd v. Nimesh B. Thakore, AIR 2010 SC 1402, decisively interpreted Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing expedited trial procedure for cheque dishonour cases under Section 138. The Court resolved pivotal issues regarding the scope of evidence by affidavit, the rights of the accused, and the retrospective application of amended procedural provisions.
⚖️ Background:
Numerous petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC prompted the Gujarat High Court to answer:
-
Whether Section 145(2) grants an accused the right to insist on oral examination-in-chief despite affidavit evidence.
-
Whether amended Section 145 (inserted by 2002 amendment) applies to pending cases (retrospectively).
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court’s Key Findings:
1. Right of Accused Under Section 145(2):
-
Not Absolute for Examination-in-Chief: If a witness gives evidence on affidavit under Section 145(1), the accused can cross-examine them under Section 145(2), but cannot insist on oral examination-in-chief all over again.
-
Such insistence is procedural duplication and defeats the aim of a speedy trial.
2. Affidavit Evidence by Accused:
-
No Right Conferred: Unlike complainants, accused do not have a right to tender affidavit evidence under Section 145(1).
-
The High Court had wrongly allowed the accused to use affidavit by equating their rights with the complainant's.
-
The Supreme Court overruled this, emphasizing the clear legislative intent.
3. Retrospective Application of Amendments:
-
Sections 143 to 147 of the NI Act, 1881 (introduced in 2002) are procedural and hence apply retrospectively.
-
These do not affect substantive rights of the accused.
⚖️ Legal Principles Laid Down:
✅ Section 145 NI Act:
-
Affidavit evidence by complainant is valid.
-
Accused can cross-examine, but cannot demand fresh oral examination-in-chief.
-
Courts can summon witnesses under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to clarify or prove documents.
✅ Procedural vs. Substantive Law:
-
Procedural amendments (like those in Sections 143–147) apply to pending cases.
❌ No Affidavit Evidence by Accused:
-
Courts cannot permit the accused to file affidavits in defence by analogy.
-
Judiciary cannot legislate or fill perceived gaps.
🧠 Observations by the Court:
-
The volume of cheque bounce cases is a huge burden on the judiciary.
-
The 2002 amendments aim to streamline and expedite such cases.
-
Allowing oral examination-in-chief after affidavit evidence would defeat the legislative intent.
🔖 Final Holding:
-
Appeal No. 3915/2006 (by complainant): Allowed – accused cannot file affidavit as defence evidence.
-
Remaining six appeals dismissed – cross-examination right is intact, but no fresh oral testimony needed.
📌 Conclusion:
This judgment is a milestone in cheque dishonour jurisprudence. It enforces the legislative goal of quick cheque recovery by rejecting dilatory tactics and rigid interpretations. It also reinforces the division of powers between judiciary and legislature.
Comments
Post a Comment