Introduction
In a significant ruling on June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot seek the transfer of a case related to the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). This decision came from the vacation bench of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal, who dismissed the transfer petition sought by the accused in the case of Kasthuripandian S vs. RBL Bank Limited (Diary No. 23680/2024).
Background
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, under Section 138, criminalizes the dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. The section ensures that the drawer of the cheque is held accountable for issuing cheques without sufficient funds, which can be punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
Transfer Petition by Accused under Section 138 of the NI Act
The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that an accused cannot file for the transfer of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Justice AS Oka stated:
“At the instance of the accused, we cannot issue an order of transfer of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner can always apply for grant of exemption from personal appearance to the concerned Court.”
This ruling reiterates the principle that the transfer of cases should not be influenced by the convenience of the accused, as it could undermine the judicial process and delay justice.
Exemption from personal appearance in NI Act cases
The Court suggested that instead of seeking a transfer, the accused could apply for an exemption from personal appearance:
“The petitioner can always apply for grant of exemption from personal appearance to the concerned Court.”
Justice Oka also mentioned his consistent stance on such matters, referencing previous instances where similar transfer petitions were dismissed:
“I have been a party to a dozen of such matters where I have rejected such transfer petitions.”
Previous Rulings and Context under Section 138 of the NI Act
In a previous case, Justice Oka dismissed a transfer petition filed by a senior citizen woman accused under Section 138. The Court had then observed that the Trial Judge should consider the exemption application favourably, ensuring that the accused is not unduly burdened.
Implications of the Ruling
Legal Precedents under Section 138 of the NI Act
This ruling sets a clear precedent that accused individuals cannot seek the transfer of cheque dishonour cases, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Judicial Efficiency
By discouraging the transfer of cases based on the accused’s convenience, the ruling aims to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that justice is delivered efficiently.
Rights of the Accused
While the ruling limits the ability of the accused to transfer cases, it simultaneously upholds their rights by allowing them to seek exemptions from personal appearance, thus balancing judicial efficiency with individual rights.
Case Details
Case Title: Kasthuripandian S vs. RBL Bank Limited
Diary No.: 23680/2024
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 138 NI Act in the case of Kasthuripandian S vs. RBL Bank Limited underscores the principle that the judicial process should not be swayed by the convenience of the accused. By denying the transfer petitions while allowing applications for exemption from personal appearance, the Court ensures a fair balance between judicial efficiency and the rights of the accused. This ruling serves as a critical reference point for future cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, promoting a more streamlined and just legal process.
