Negotiable act ordinace june 2015-troubled
hemant pandey
(Querist) 20 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
this recent ordinance has made victims in troubles. Came in June 2015, later withdrawn, again bill passed by lok sabha and pending with Rajya sabha. after June 3 hearing dates are passed but court is neither transferring case nor doing any progress on the case. court is waiting for high court orders weather case is to resume in same court or transfer to other court. accused is taking benefit of this and every time saying before court that he will pay money next month. but this next month is not coming. court is cool and only giving date. my lawyer is also saying to wait only till position clears. it is pure harassment of mine. why should complaint suffer due to ordinance issue. case should either resume or transfer. not understanding why is it at standstill /idle stage. can you kindly advise if I can do anything or just wait?
Rudrawar Narayanreddy
(Expert) 20 August 2015
The ordinance is notified in June 2015 and its life is 6 months. So cases transferred as per the supreme court order are to be retransferred to the court where earlier it was. You ask for. Court will order. Advocates will ask to wait till the case matter is clear. Otherwise if the court retransferred the earlier court may not take back the file. Then there will be problem. So courts wait for order from High courts. Better some one move the High court. If the higher court such as High court or supreme court orders it will be binding on the all courts.
Chattopadhyay Arghya
(Expert) 21 August 2015
it is like all other statutory lockout which have taken course to virtualize justice in India. it can be continued if not transferred because S.C further stayed execution of its own order by larger bench regarding new rule of geographical jurisdiction. But no contrary order has yet been passed. filing new cases is big trouble for confusion in the mind of magistrate. why do you bother? your physical appearance is not necessary and can pray for representation by counsel.Besides in 138 N.I.Act case complainants enjoy a step ahead of advantage.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 22 August 2015
Agree with the expert Chattopadhyay Arghya.
hemant pandey
(Querist) 22 August 2015
just to reconfirm on Mr Rudrawar's reply if it is 6 months or 6 weeks?. I came to know that ordinance is valid for 6 weeks not 6 months it is valid till 6 weeks from the date of re-assembly of parliament. this Ordinance will be valid till 1st September when 6 weeks' period gets over after re-assembly of Parliament on 21 July 2015.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 22 August 2015
Be assured that the ordinance will be reissued since Govt has more cases than private parties.
Even without ordinance there are still many opportunities to contest on jurisdiction for the accused since in over confidence proper pleadings are always missing in most of the complaints.
Chattopadhyay Arghya
(Expert) 24 August 2015
I find it a great issue of discussion - in this N.I.Act f actuality. Jurisdiction issue is
is there of course; yet I am quite in confidence and in agreement with the comments of last Expert Advocate Defense. yes right it is. In fact senior lawyers and also advocate teams of famous firms which get place by name in Law Journal/Law Reporter due to involvement with large number of cases file cases u/s 138 N.I.Act in such form and substance, statements with lacuna even reflecting wrong use of legal phrase ,doctrine etc, as may not be expected from a schooling law student. Amazingly later these practitioners get so perplexed after or during cross examination that they import such and such hypothesis and files such applications which in contents make no meaning, neither in law nor in facts nor in reason; it appears that they have no idea or knowledge of Evidence Law, Cr.P.C. rules of procedure and basic concept of components of a complaint or application, implication of Affidavit, intention behind the rules of furnishing copies in definite dimension. Most disturbing is that most defense advocates too hardly go in detail analysis of the complaints on the background of comparative resources of law so far conceptual. majority advocates advises clients to compromise, there is no escape. However I must say as I observe many magistrates too act in a sense, virtual notion of misinterpretation or faulty concepts. The rigorous bound of limitation and other propositions are often given less weight Doctrine of presumption of guilt is misinterpreted always. The first and basic adjudication before cognizance is never given importance. Even after filing objection showing the points non-compliance of basic conditions on the face value of the contents of application which require no further proof and open on records , most J.Ms never look at the issue and prosecution is not asked to file rejoinder; prosecution even does not file reply against claim of defense. when some basic constrain is not removed by alternative proposition which depends upon another fact subject to proof by witness to sustain proceeding or commence process otherwise proceedings instantly become invalid or illegal,a magistrate is expected to ask for evidence thereto u/s 202 or at least before further evidence should commence such witnesses as to prove said alternative first; but hardly any one even after showing legal provisions never proceed as such. Bundles of cases pending and of which 50% ought not to have been sustained for more than 2 dates. In fact lack of interest in doing proper adjudication,real justice, lack of conscience about the real spirit of judicial justice also lack of proper concept of several provisions like 203 of Cr.P.C , objectives and purpose of such provisions have become one of the most avoidable circumstance to remove junk in courts.
to take up issue of Jurisdiction , the controversial issues of territorial jurisdiction is an useless issue and irrelevant almost unrealistic approach ;place of origin of cheques now in the IT enabled Integrated Online Banking Network is insignificant . Dishonoure results on the basis of data loaded on a common server and accounts are now not static account but dynamic accounts, branches are integrated in single unit in distributed transaction terminals. The basic purpose,intention and objective of N.I Act itself will lose its significance. Fraudulent intention is presumed in the pretext of this act; for a sum of 50,000, a cheque issued to a dealer in Mumbai drawn on a Bank in Delhi if dishonoured will cost more than 50,000 at the initial stage. it will cost five times the amount of cheque to conclude with a victory or defeat.Fraudulent persons will intentionally arrange for remote accounts in distant places, to discourage court process. No one will be agreed to use cheque transaction unless drawn on local account. But so much discussions bear no significance in present India wherein supremacy of Judiciary has been given to mockery. Apex court also in giving judgement sometimes is not giving scores to the real impact and executive improbability, viability of enforcement agencies, aspect of majority parliament's leaders,corruptions,attachment between capitalist and union government, etc. Courts are empowered to give orders and dictate punishments; nothing else; the machinery of power is vested in executives,police and forces. They are not driven by court. In any contempt case too courts have no real power . As court's power is virtual , our justice has become and rendered the characteristics of virtual justice, a salutary pronouncements.
