Abstract

Cheque dishonour litigation in India has long suffered from procedural delays and inadequate relief for complainants, despite the ostensibly summary nature of proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In an effort to mitigate the abuse of appellate remedies and to provide interim monetary relief, the legislature introduced Section 148 A in the Negotiable Instruments Act through the 2018 Amendment, empowering the appellate court to direct the deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. While this provision was intended as a progressive measure to restore faith in financial instruments and expediate justice its implementation has fallen short. This paper critically analyses the legislative intent behind Section 148 A examines the judicial response to its enforcement and interrogates the systematic barriers that continues to undermine its effectiveness. It further highlights the disproportionate burden of NI Act cases on judicial system which is often surpassing the regular criminal courts dockets, drawing on recent case laws, empirical observations and institutional shortcomings. The paper argues that unless accompanied by a proactive and equity oriented judicial approach, Section 148A has become a tokenistic gesture rather than a meaningful remedy. Reforms in quantum, enforceability, and judicial attitude are necessary to ensure that the provision achieves its intended compensatory and deterrent purpose.

Keywords