6.1 Issuing a cheque which is dishonoured is crime in India. But we hardly see any people being punished for bouncing of cheques. People are dissuaded to trust bank cheques. This all because courts in India are awefully overburdened with dishonoured cheque cases.
6.2 Legal experts are unanimous in their opinion that the present system of criminal jurisprudence is destined to fail if the backlog of cases is not substantially reduced. Recently, the Law Commission of India mooted the concept of “plea-bargaining” – pre-trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecution in which if the accused agrees to plead guilty for the
charges leveled against him he would get in exchange certain concessions as a quid pro quo, by taking a lenient view by the courts, particularly in cases of lesser gravity. Actually, the courts have been practically following such a practice, for several years, now.
6.3 A speedy trial is not only required to give quick justice but it is also an integral part of the fundamental right of life and liberty, as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6.4 The Law Commission of India is of the firm opinion that considering the alarming situation of the pendency of cases and the constitutional rights of a litigant for a speedy and fair trial, the Government of India should direct the State authorities for setting up of Fast Track Courts in the country, which alone, in the opinion of the Law Commission, will solve the perennial problem of pendency of cases, which are even summary in nature.
6.5 The Law Commission is of the view that the backlog of cheque bouncing cases need to be speedily disposed of through this measure lest litigants may lose faith in the judicial system. The commercial circles should have confidence that we have quite faster judicial system.
(a) Fast Track Courts of Magistrates should be created to dispose of the dishonoured cheque cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;
(b) The Central Government and State Governments must provide necessary funds to meet the expenditure involved in the creation of Fast Track Courts, supporting staff and other infrastructure.
Two alternatives are available to the Government of the day. One is to seek a reconsideration of the three judgments aforesaid before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Otherwise a law may be passed restoring the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the power of the executive to make the appointments.