Technical defects should not come in the way of justice: Supreme Court restores trial in cheque bounce case

Technical defects or irregularities should not hinder the provision of substantial justice, observed the Supreme Court recently while restoring a cheque bounce case that had effectively been closed on account of one such technical ground [Bijoy Shankar Mishra vs State of Jharkhand and anr]..A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti used the Court's plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to restore the case, after also noting that the complainant in the matter had not received adequate legal assistance..The accused in the cheque-bounce case had earlier been discharged by a magistrate court after it opined, at the stage of final arguments, that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The top court has now restored the case through an order passed on September 12. "We feel that the appellant – Bijoy Shankar Mishra should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect/lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The (Criminal Procedure) Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice", the Supreme Court said..The top court added that the magistrate had passed its order without realising the legal consequences of such an order, as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for over four years..The Supreme Court made the observation while allowing an appeal challenging a December 2021 Jharkhand High Court order that refused to interfere with the magistrate's 2020 order..The cheque bouncing complaint was registered in 2016 concerning an amount of about ₹45.20 lakhs. A magistrate in Jamshedpur eventually took cognisance and issued summons in the matter.In January 2018, the statement of the accused was recorded. However, in February 2020, the magistrate found that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. Rather, the magistrate opined that the case ought to have been taken up by courts in another district. Having said this, the magistrate discharged the accused. .The Supreme Court has now set aside this magistrate order, opining that it was a peculiar order that was passed in a hurry. The top court concluded that it was a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code (power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals).Accordingly, it set aside the order under challenge and directed that the trial continue before the magistrate in Jamshedpur. The Court, however, also clarified that this order cannot be used as precedent..Advocates Rahul Shyam Bhandari, G Priyadharshni, Satyam Pathak, Ratneshwar Chakma, and Konark Tyagi represented the appellant, Bijoy Shankar Mishra.Advocates Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, and Ekta Bharati represented the Jharkhand government.Advocates Anindita Mitra, Rashmi Nandakumar, and Rachita Bhat appeared for the accused, Sourav Ghosh..[Read order]