The Allahabad High Court, while refusing to grant the accused an additional opportunity to lead evidence in a 13-year-old cheque bounce case instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observed that excessive delay in the resolution of judicial disputes weakens the very foundation of the judicial process.
In this context, the Court underlined that,
“In the hallowed pursuit of justice, the maxim “In diem vivere in lege sunt detestabilis” stands as an eternal rebuke to protracted litigation and signifies that unnecessary procrastination or stalling tactics in legal proceedings are abhorrent to justice. Such tardiness not only erodes public confidence but also renders the law an instrument of distress rather than relief.”
The order was passed by Single Bench of Justice Satyaveer Singh while disposing of an application filed by Brijesh Kumar.
In the present case, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court and declined to interfere.
Referring to the words of William Shakespeare, the Court further observed that,
“Defer no time; delays have dangerous ends.”
It may be noted that the applicant had filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. The concerned court had earlier, on 18.08.2025, closed the opportunity for defence evidence as the accused failed to pursue the matter and did not submit the handwriting expert’s report despite being granted repeated opportunities.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the trial court had not given reasonable opportunity and that closing the opportunity to produce the expert report was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, the Government Advocate, however, submitted that proceedings under Section 138 are summary in nature and are required to be concluded within six months.
Upon examining the record, the Court noted that the original complaint had been filed on 1 February 2013. The statement of the accused was recorded on 30 July 2021, wherein he expressed his intention to lead defence evidence. A sample signature was obtained in 2023, yet the expert report was never filed thereafter. Despite several reminders and a final opportunity, the trial court closed the chance to submit evidence in August 2025.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that pendency of the case for 13 years runs completely contrary to the very concept of summary trial.
“Such protracted pendency constitutes a gross abuse of the process of Court in summary trial cases.”
The Court further noted that,
“The N.I. Act is a special act. The summary trial in N.I. Act is for quick disposal. The intent of the legislation is to try the cases on a day-to-day basis until their conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, within six months, and the object is to facilitate smooth transactions by cheque.”
The judicial process in such cases, the Court noted, reflects the well-settled principle that ‘Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’.
Prolonged delay also runs contrary to the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which guarantees the right to speedy justice.
The Court further stated that,
“For compliance with directions issued in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act (supra), a circular letter was issued bearing Letter No. 10383/2022/Admin G-II/ Allahabad/ Dated : 23.08.2022, having Sub : For compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Court with regard to expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 N.I. Act 1881 addressed to all the District Judges subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”
The Court also held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010) must be followed strictly by Courts/Magistrates in letter as well as in spirit, by all courts and magistrates dealing with matters under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, reiterating the need for immediate disposal of cheque bounce cases, the Court disposed of the application.
Case: Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and another
Date of Order: 20.02.2026
See the Order: Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and another
