Ways to solve the problem with incorrect check payment.

Over the past few years, there has been a marked increase in the number of financial transactions, which has undoubtedly led to an increase in non-payment and disputes. And while cash is still the preferred method of payment in the country, there has been an increase in the use of digital payments in recent years[1].

Payment documents as an alternative to cash

In the traditional sense, payment documents have been used as an alternative to cash and have been the preferred method of payment for those seeking to make cashless payments. According to a report published by the Reserve Bank of India in 2013, check payments account for half of the total volume''cashless payments[2].

Punishment for non-payment of checks

Section 138 of the Act penalizes a person who has drawn a check if it is not paid due to insufficient funds or if the amount exceeds the amount provided for payment from the account. However, the process by judges is lengthy and laborious. Courts routinely turn simplified nonpayment check processes into summonses and procedural actions, resulting in a large number of unopened cases. According to an amicus curiae report, Adv. Sidharth Luthra and Adv. K Parameshwar before the Supreme Court, cases of non-payment of cheques constitute more than 8% of the total pending criminal cases, totaling 35.16 lakh cases of non-payment of cheques. The high number of pending cases''can be explained by the courts converting summary processes into challenges within the available powers[3]. This not only defeats the purpose of the Act but also results in high costs. The Magistrate Courts and Judicial Magistrates are overburdened with Section 138 cases. In this regard, the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in the case of Union of Indian Banks v. Union of India[4].

Guidelines for speedy disposal of cases of unpaid cheques

The guidelines require the judge to scrutinize the complaint, documents and other materials on the day the complaint is filed. Judges should complete the main interrogatory within 3 months. It is possible to conduct interrogatories by way of affidavit. In the decision of Damodar S. Prabhu vs.'In 'Syed Babalal H[5], the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for an agreement to settle an offense under Section 138 of the Banking Act, 1881. For example, it has been held that the court can allow the settlement of an offense without imposing any fee if the application for settlement has been made at the first or second hearing. In Meters and Instruments Private Limited v.

• All courts should follow the guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court in Indian Banks Association v. Union of India[8].
• In addition,'''Every case under section 138 of the Act must be registered as a summary case [Simplified Bill of Costs (STC-NI)].
• The presence of the complainant in person is not necessary for registration; this may be done using a power of attorney if the attorney has no personal knowledge of the transaction.
• The police must be involved to effect delivery of summonses and warrants to the accused.
• There is a need to determine the defendant's ability to hire an attorney to represent him or her in court hearings. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court should appoint an attorney to represent him or her.
• If the court concludes that a settlement is possible, it may direct the parties to''mediation or local court. If an agreement is reached, an enforcement application must be filed.
• But if the case is not settled, the matter requires consideration at the stage of formulation of charges or interrogatories under Article 251 CrPC.
• Before the filing of a statement of defense, the court should treat the case as a summary case, and the possibility of converting it into an ordinary case should be considered only after examining all aspects of the case as prescribed in the guidelines.
• Every bounced check case should be completed within 6 months, and sentence should be imposed within 3 days of the conclusion of final arguments.

Impact and analysis Recommendations submitted''Supreme Court, have proved effective in filling the gaps in the existing procedural law, speeding up the judicial process and dealing with the increasing number of bounced cheque cases. It has been found that in the exercise of their discretionary powers, judges are converting cases under Section 138 of the Act into ordinary sessions without recording the reasons for such conversion. The guidelines provide for a faster and simplified process which requires less cost and time. The guidelines also provide for settlement mechanisms that encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Settlement of a case in the early stages of litigation is simplified because it is possible to return to''other offenses, if the application for settlement is filed at a later stage of the trial. If the defendant resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, a check is conducted, after which the judge decides whether the case can be prosecuted, which saves considerable court time.

Some issues remain unresolved, however, concerning technical aspects, such as the time taken to verify the possibility of resolving the case, the possibility of resolving the case by other dispute resolution mechanisms, etc.

In conclusion, it can be said that courts are taking initiative and setting guidelines to resolve pending cases of bounced checks and ensure speedy trial of such cases.''However, it cannot be denied that the court system is overburdened with cases and there is a need to create additional courts and improve the infrastructure already in place to deal effectively with bounced check cases. Late justice is justice deprived and an overburdened court will not be able to deliver justice within a reasonable time. Such delays inevitably lead to loss of public confidence in the justice mechanism and the judiciary. Therefore, establishment of sufficient number of courts with qualified judges and staff becomes an urgent task for timely disposal of such cases.