Aftab Alam, J. - (1.) Leave granted
(2.) In these appeals we are required to consider the special provisions laid down by Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', hereinafter) for a dishonoured cheque trial and to consider how far certain assertions made by the accused are in accordance with the provisions contained in the two Sub-sections of that section.
(3.) The High Court had before it a large number of writ petitions and applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Most of those petitions were filed on behalf of the accused but a few were also at the instance of the complainants. On the basis of the grievances made and reliefs prayed for in those petitions the High Court framed the following two questions as arising for its consideration: (A) Whether Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, "the Act") confers an unfettered right on the complainant and the accused to apply to the court seeking direction to give oral examination-in-chief of a person giving evidence on affidavit, even in respect of the facts stated therein and that if such a right is exercised, whether the court is obliged to examine such a person in spite of the mandate of Section 145(1) of the Act (B) Whether the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, (for short "the amending Act of 2002") are applicable to the complaints under Section 138 of the Act pending on the date on which the amendment came into force In other words, do the amended provisions of Section 145(1) and (2) of the Act operate retrospectively ;