cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”
2.16 The Bombay High Court in KSL & Indutries Ltd.20 deemed it appropriate, in order to accomplish the underlying object of the Act, to pass the following directions:
Experience reveals that enormous time is spent at the stage of summoning/serving the accused. The court must adopt pragmatic methods and must serve them by all possible means of service, including e-mail…. The Court must ensure that the accused are not permitted to abuse the system.
The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be concluded within three months of assigning the case….
Complaints must be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within six months from the date when the presence of the accused has been secured….21
In Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’Souza22, the Supreme Court,
while considering the object and the ingredients of sections 138 and 139 of the Act, observed as under:
“The object and the ingredients under the provisions, sections 138 and 139 of the Act cannot be ignored.
in particular, Proper and
Ibid. at 1208.
JT 2003 (9) SC 451.