Section 143

Section 143 is the procedural engine that was meant to make cheque bounce litigation fast. It converts Section 138 trials into a summary proceeding — the most abbreviated form of criminal trial available under the CrPC — and layers on additional time-saving provisions including affidavit evidence and continuous day-to-day hearings. **Summary Trial Procedure (CrPC Sections 262–265):** In a summary trial, the Magistrate can convict on a shorter, simplified record. The full elaboration of evidence and arguments required in a sessions trial or warrant case is not mandatory. The accused's plea is recorded, evidence is heard in a streamlined fashion, and judgment follows. Summary trials are designed for simple, clear-cut matters — which, in theory, most Section 138 cases are. **The 1-Year Cap on Summary Sentences:** A significant limitation — in a summary trial, the Magistrate cannot sentence the accused to more than 1 year's imprisonment. If the Magistrate believes the facts warrant more than 1 year (or if it is for any other reason undesirable to try summarily), they must convert the case to a regular warrant case and re-hear it. In practice, this conversion is rare — Section 138's maximum punishment of 2 years rarely results in sentences exceeding 1 year for first offenders. **Affidavit Evidence (Sub-section 4):** The complainant may give their evidence by affidavit — without appearing in court for examination-in-chief. This eliminates a major cause of delay: witnesses needing to travel to court repeatedly. The accused can still cross-examine the complainant, but the initial evidence is on affidavit. Courts have increasingly relied on this provision to reduce trial length. **Electronic Records Presumption (Sub-section 5):** Electronic records presented by the complainant (bank statements, digital dishonour memos, emails) are presumed correct unless disproved. This is particularly important in an era of CTS-based clearing where the dishonour memo is typically an electronic communication. **6-Month Target — Aspirational, Not Mandatory:** The 6-month trial completion provision uses the phrase 'as far as possible' — it is a direction to courts, not a binding legal requirement. If the trial is not concluded in 6 months, the case is not automatically dismissed. However, courts can use this provision to resist unnecessary adjournments and pressure parties to conclude trials promptly. **Reality vs Aspiration:** Despite Section 143, cheque bounce cases remain chronically delayed — over 35 lakh cases pending nationwide. The Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments (2017) recommended trial-on-affidavit and ex parte proceedings for absent accused as tools to reduce pendency.