The New Negotiable Instrument Act Ordinance 2015 fails in trial intelligentsia

That government has recently passed the second ordinance after to curb the difficulty of large number of pending Check bounce matters. As interestingly the action was to benefit the complainant but might come as a downblow which many trial intelligentsia are already discussing as pointed below:

The ordinance does not define which cases should have to be transferred on the other hand it explicitly made clear that all case need to be transferred S. 4. Of the ordinance abundantly enlarges the scope   as in the principal Act, after section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-

“142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the •Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Ordinance, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.”

As we already know Section 143 of the Act introduced by 2002 Amendment as already defined this trials under 138 NI act to be summary in nature with non obstante clause only if the magistrate feels to try it as a summons case which he can only do by passing a specific order in regard to such nature of trial otherwise it will be deemed to be a summary trial. This now causes unanswered question of law that Negotiable instrument ordinance 2015 has made every case to transfer irrespective of the stage in which the trial has undergone.  

Which thus makes trial to suffer the wrath of S.326 (3) wherein its clearly states that in a summary trial the evidence if recorded by a Magistrate partly, the entire trial vitiates and becomes non est in the law. In such cases, de novo trial is only the alternative. Since 326(3) crystal states that the  successive magistrates has bar on reliance on evidence which has been dealt by his previous magistrates.  Also Hon’ble Supreme Court Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal AIR 2011 SC 3076  upheld the same view while transferred case cannot be tried by the successive magistrate in a summary trial. 

Its pertinent to note such situation never happen during the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod when in regarding the Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Bouncing Case as their Lordships where understandable  as the category of cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond will continue in the Courts where it is now pending which truly validities the above notion of 326 (3) read with the ordinance bill will only give rise to de novo trials  and loss to complainant as such trial needless to be completed within 6 months  wherein non compliance of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah  judgement will just  give accused unfair bias, hope he know law is blind and still weighing.