Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon  Therefore, let us understand the observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard. The Court started by discussing the scheme of the NI Act and stated that as on 31.12.2019, “the total number of criminal cases pending was 2.31 crores, out of which 35.16 lakh pertained to Section 138 of the Act.” The Court also observed that there are various reasons for such delay in the trials such as issues in service of summons, mechanical conversion of summary cases to summons cases, prolonged mediations, jurisdictional issues etc. Hence, let us discuss the directions given by the Supreme Court to curb the delay in cases relating to the NI Act. Firstly, the High Courts were requested to make sure that the Magistrates record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act from summary trial to summons trial. Such reasons must be recorded to in writing. Secondly, it was directed that a Preliminary Inquiry must be conducted in Section 138 (Cheque Dishonor) cases to arrive at “sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.” Thirdly, the Court mandated that when an accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate and an inquiry in this regard is conducted, evidence of complainant witnesses shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit and the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents. This step would save a lot of time as travelling time of the witnesses could be cut substantially. Fourthly, Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was discussed that provides that a person cannot be tried for more than three offences in a single Trial. The Court observed that suitable amendments are required to be carried out in this section to increase the limit of offences that could be tried at once in a given trial, as many a times, in cases of cheque dishonours, other offences such as forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. are also involved. So, there are multiple offences. Fifthly, it was directed that wherever there are multiple complaints under Section 138 forming part of the same transaction or arising out of same transaction, the High Courts should issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one case under Section 138, as deemed service in respect of all the other complaints filed before the same court that are linked to the same transaction or cause of action. So, if there are multiple cheques that have been dishonoured in a case and there are multiple cases of section 138 pending before the same court, in such cases, service in one case could be treated as deemed service in all the other cases. Sixthly, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier order that “there is no inherent power of Trial Courts tor review or recall the issue of summons.” Many a times in cases of section 138, multiple summons are issued and the court recall their summons. So, in order to cure such problems, the Court issued this direction. And lastly, there was a Committee that was constituted to look into the delay in Section 138 cases. The Court directed it to further deliberate and discuss the other issues at length. So, what are my concluding remarks? I feel that pendency of Cheque Dishonour cases is one of the biggest issues that has been haunting the Indian Judiciary since quite some time. The gui