M/S. MANDVI CO-OP BANK LTD. versus NIMESH B. THAKORE

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 11-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 219 
M/S. MANDVI CO-OP BANK LTD. 
v. 
NIMESH B. THAKORE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2010 ) 
JANUARY 11, 2010 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
B 
ss.145(1) and (2) -Affidavit of a deponent is in the nature c 
of examination-in-Chief -
On being summoned under 
s. 145(2), complainant or his witness whose evidence is given 
on affidavit is not required to depose in examination-in-chief 
all over again - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.165. 
ss. 145(1) and (2) - Applicability to the proceedings D 
pending on 6.2.2003, the date on which these sections were 
inserted in the Act - Held: Applicable as these provisions are 
procedural and not substantive in nature. 
s.145(1) - Right of accused to give evidence on affidavit E 
- Held: s.145(1) confers right on the complainant to give 
evidence on affidavit - It does not speak of similar right being 
conferred on the accused - On facts, High Court erred in 
holding that not mentioning the accused along with the 
complainant in sub-section (1) of s.145 was merely an 
F 
omission by the legislature that it could fill up - Interpretation 
of Statutes. 
s.145(2) and s.296(2) CrPC - The two sections whether 
identical - Held: The two sections are not identical - s.296(2) 
deals with evidence of formal nature and is a part of elaborate 
G 
procedure of regular trial under the Code while the object of 
s.145(2), is to design a much simpler and swifter trial 
procedure departing from time consuming trial procedure of 
219 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 
A the Code - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.296(2). 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
It is not permissible for the Cowt to make additions in 
the law and to read into it something that is just not there -
B Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.145(1). 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
appeals were whether the right of the accused under 
Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is 
c limited to cross-examination of complainant or his 
witness giving evidence on affidavit or is it open to the 
accused to insist that notwithstanding the evidence 
earlier given on affidavit, on coming to the court the 
complainant or his witness ought to first give deposition 
0 in examination-in-chief before being cross-examined by 
him; whether the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) 
of Section 145 of the Act would apply to proceedings that 
were pending on February 6, 2003, the date on which 
those provisions were inserted in the Act; and whether 
E the right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to the 
complainant under section 145(1) of the Act is also 
available to the accused. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of the newly inserted 
Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, with 
effect from April 1, 1989, brought in a veritable deluge of 
cases in the criminal court system. In the metropolitan 
cities and the commercial centres of the country, it almost 
G appeared that the main function of the Magistrate's court 
was to recover monies on behalf of parties on the wrong 
end of the commercial transactions that had gone sour. 
Complaints under section 138 of the Act came to be filed 
in such large numbers that it became impossible for the 
H courts to handle them within a reasonable time and it also 
MANDVI CO-OP BANK LTD. v. NI MESH B. THAKORE .221 
had a highly adverse effect on the court's normal work A 
in ordinary criminal matters. A remedial measure was 
urgently required and the legislature took action by 
introducing further amendments in the Act by the 
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous 
Provisions) Act, 2002. The 2002 amend.ment inserted in 
B 
the Act for the first time sections 143 to 147 besides 
bringing about a number of changes in the existing 
provisions of sections 138 to 142. Section 143 gave to the 
court the power to try cases summarily; section 144 
provided for the mode of service of summons; section c 
145 made it possible for the complainant to give his 
evidence on affidavit; section 146 provided that the 
bank's slip would be pr!ma facie evidence of certain facts 
and section 147 made the offences under the Act 
compoundable. [Para 13] [234-C-H] 
0 
1.2. The provisions of sections 143, 144, 145 and 147 
expressly departed from and overrode the provisions of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the main body of 
adjective law for criminal trials. The provisi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.