Negotiable instrument (amendment) ordinance, 2015
Dalip Singh
(Querist) 18 June 2015
This query is : Resolved
The Bill proposes to inserts a new sub-clause to the existing Section 142 [sub-clause (2)]. It reads as follows,
“(2) The offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for payment, is situated“
The Bill also introduces a new Section [142A] in the N.I Act. It reads as follows;
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 of sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1), all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
(3) If, on the date of commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same person against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section 142(2) before which the first case was filed as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.”
My query is that the cases which were returned after the judgement in case of Dasrath Rupsing Rathod but not filed in the court of jurisdiction (drawee's bank) and sent to record room can be revived in view of the present ordinance on the plea that this sub section had been in force at all material times and those cases should not have been transferred.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 18 June 2015
Since this is new concept of such a large scale involving all over the country for millions of cases so every court is adopting varying procedures.
Normally delay is allowed for refiling for prior to ordinance in most of the courts.
Those who could not refile will attract limitation bar till matter goes to higher courts.
However being for defense and particularly for cheque bounce the new amendment gives many simple escape routes for any accused earlier or new.
