22/06/2018
Recent Amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Recent Amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881â€
By Shantimal Jain
Cite as : (2003) 4 SCC (Jour) 30
All the commercial transactions largely depend on the banking system of the country and by and large the banking
system carries out these transactions through paper instruments called the negotiable instruments.
In today's world where the use of cash in day-to-day's life is getting extinct and when people are using negotiable
instruments in commercial transactions and plastic money for daily needs, it is extremely necessary that people's faith in
such instruments be strengthened steadily.
Similarly in order to meet the challenges of the globalisation, liberalization and open market economy and to maintain the
level of competitiveness, apart from other infrastructural facilities a sound banking system in the country is sine qua non.
The "cheque system" is one of the important components of the sound banking system. A sound "cheque system" needs
to be evolved by throwing the message around that its "dishonour never pays".
Prior to the amendment of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the year 1988, whereby Sections 138 to 142 were
inserted, the act of dishonour of cheque was treated as an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Since the penal law is
based upon the principle of proof beyond doubt, the drawer of a dishonoured cheque was able to easily evade the rigors
of punishment by raising flimsy doubts and the drawer of the cheque was left scot-free.
With the insertion of these provisions in the Act the situation certainly improved and the instances of dishonour have
relatively come down but on account of application of different interpretative techniques by different High Courts on
different provisions of the Act it further compounded and complicated the situation although on dishonour of cheques the
trends of the verdicts of the Supreme Court unequivocally demonstrate that there is subconscious judicial pressure in the
mind of the Judges which leans heavily in favour of the holder of the cheque.
Having regard to the working of these penal provisions on dishonour of cheques and the bottlenecks that have surfaced
in strictly implementing these provisions, Parliament enacted the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 2002 (55 of 2002)1, which is intended to plug the loopholes. This amendment Act inserts five new
sections from 143 to 147 touching various limbs of the parent Act and the amendment Act has been recently brought into
force on Feb. 6, 20032
Section 143 is intended to achieve speedy trial. By applying provisions of Sections 262 to 265 CrPC it enables a Judicial
Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class to conduct the trial. Then it contemplates summary trial and provides for
continuous day-to-day hearing of the case till its conclusion and further stipulates that the trial is to be completed within 6
months from the date of filing of the complaint. It further empowers the Magistrate to pass a sentence for imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding twice the amount of the cheque notwithstanding anything
contained to the contrary in CrPC.
The new Section 144 deals with the service of summons. It would now enable the Magistrate not to follow the elaborate
procedure for serving summons as required by Sections 61 to 90 CrPC. The sub-section of this section allows the
summons to be served through the speedpost and notified private couriers besides the normal process. Precisely
speaking, this section has brought about the concept of "constructive service". This provision is analogous to the
principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. According to this where the sender has
dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, then it can be deemed to have been served on the
sender unless he proves that it was really not served. This is the position which got endorsed by the Supreme Court in K.
Bhaskaran case3 Similarly the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Y. Sriniwasa Reddy held that notice sent
through registered post as well as under the certificate of posting was sufficient service. The new provisions take care of
these two case-laws. Also on refusal to take delivery of the summons, the Court can declare that the summons have
been duly served.
Section 145 contemplates evidence on affidavit and it appears while bringing this amendment the Government had in its
mind the ratio decidendi in the case of BIPS System Ltd. v. State, of Delhi High Court. According to this section the
complainant can give his evidence by way of an affidavit and the same may be attached with the complaint and if the
accused wants to contradict the contents of the affidavit the complainant may be called for examination.
Then Section 146 provides for presumption to bank memorandums. Earlier whenever a question arose whether there
was insufficient funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque, it was conceived to be a matter of evidence being a
question of fact and onus was placed on the complainant and for discharging this onus the bank personnel was to be
examined. This naturally delayed things. It has therefore been provided that based on the bank slip the Court would
presume the fact of dishonour, unless and until such fact is disproved.
Now lastly, Section 147 provides for compounding of offences under this Act. There was a difference of opinion in
different High Courts on the question whether offences under the provisions of the Act were compoundable or not. The
Kerala High Court's view was in the negative whereas the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was in the affirmative.
Unfortunately the matter did not reach the Apex Court. Parliament therefore has resolved the controversy and provided
that offences under the Act would be compoundable.
Besides this Sections 138, 141 and 142 have also been amended by doubling the imprisonment term from one year to
two years and the period of time to issue demand notice to the drawer from 15 days to 30 days and by providing
immunity from prosecution for nominee director. It has also been provided that the Magistrate can condone the delay in
filing the complaint in special and peculiar circumstances.
An objective perusal of the aforesaid amendment would reveal that the Act has now become a self-contained statute
wherein an "in-house mechanism" has been provided in the Act itself which would take care that the trial is a speedy one,
no undue delay occurs, the bouncer is booked and he does not escape the rope on flimsy grounds and that a more
deterrent punishment is provided. Similarly the service of summons has been made easy and the offence is made
compoundable. It therefore follows that the amendment has addressed itself squarely to the shortcomings that were
perceived and exposed hitherto in its administration right from the 1988 amendment. Simultaneously procedural norms
have been simplified and some "determinatives" have been put forth which would take care of every conceivable
contingency, which could permit the bouncer to rock the boat of proceedings during trial as all the bottlenecks have been
