Soon, speedy trials for dud cheque cases | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 23, 2017-Thursday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Soon, speedy trials for dud cheque cases

mumbai Updated: Nov 28, 2010 01:08 IST
Vignesh Iyer

Your cheque-bouncing cases are likely to consume less time for disposal. But this is possible only after the Bombay High Court accepts the 14 recommendations made by a court-appointed committee for speedy trial of such cases.

The high court has forwarded the recommendations to its registrar general for recording his opinion, which he will have to submit by December 16.

The committee recommended that while taking cognisance of the complaint itself, the trial court should decide the jurisdiction of the drawee — the person who has issued the bounced cheque.

“To expeditiously dispose of the complaint, it is necessary to restrict the defence to complete the cross-examination of any particular party in not more than three dates,” the committee said.

In 2007, the Nashik District Industrial and Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited had filed a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court saying that there were more than seven lakh cheque-bouncing cases in Maharashtra, of which more than three lakh were from Mumbai.

Subsequently, the court set up a committee in September this year comprising AN Nandapurkar, the director of public prosecution, Sangitrao Patil, registrar, legal and research of the Bombay High Court and SG Shete, chief metropolitan magistrate esplanade court.

For speedy disposal of cases, the committee suggested that a special wing of handwriting experts and forensic science be appointed region-wise to compare signatures and thumb impressions and also that the provision of refund of court fees be made applicable, in case of amicable settlement.

The court-appointed panel also recommended that a fixed time be framed for disposal of revision applications and appeals, and if there are several complaints, in respect of same transaction, then they be clubbed and tried together.

The committee also recommended that as a complainant is required to file the affidavit of evidence even the accused should also be permitted and directed to do so to curtail loss of time.