ORDER(Oral) 1. This order also governs disposal of MCC No. 291/05 to 297/05 filed by Steel Tubes of India v. Steel Authority of India. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant-complainant Steel Authority of India Limited has filed eight cases for dishonour of eight cheques, in each cheque the amount of one crore or more than one crore is involved. The complainant in his complaints, as well as statements recorded under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for shon. "the Code') has not disclosed as to against which liability or debt, the cheque was issued in his favour by the applicant. The applicant herein filed an application under section 91 of the Code seeking direction before the trial Court for production of documents by the non-applicant complainant regarding transaction concerning with the cheques issued by the applicant and their dish on our by the Bank but according to the applicant, some documents were filed and some were not filed. The applicant was not satisfied with the documents filed by the non-applicant, therefore, he has filed the application under section 259 of the Code praying for conversion of summons case into warrant case. He submitted before the trial Court that looking to the huge amount involved and number of documents required to be adduced by either party, the case may be tried as warrant case. This prayer of the applicant has been turned down by the trial Court 'in all eight cases. Against that order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the trial Court, the applicant went up in revision and the learned lower revisional Court has also dismissed the revision by the impugned orders. That is how the applicant has approached this Court by filing petition under section 482 of the Code. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-accused is that summons case can be tried as warrant case and in the Code of 1973, specific provision in this regard is prescribed, i. e., section 259. This provision is prescribed in Chapter 20 of the Code. Learned counsel has submitted that the application of the applicant has been turned down on wrong premises and the learned Courts below have failed to consider real implication of section 259 of the Code and intention of legislature. This provision is prescribed in Chapter 20 of the Code. Learned counsel has submitted that the application of the applicant has been turned down on wrong premises and the learned Courts below have failed to consider real implication of section 259 of the Code and intention of legislature. According to him, if transaction between the parties is relating to the huge amount and there were several transactions between the parties as well as for proving the transaction, a number of documents would be required by the complainant as well the applicant-accused to adduce in evidence, in such circumstances, summons case should be tried as warrant case so that effective opportunity would be given to all parties to prove their case in accordance with law and Court would also be facilitated to dig out the truth and come to right conclusion. 4. Learned counsel has submitted that he could not lay hands on any decision of the apex Court or even by any High Court on this point. However, he placed reliance on Sohoni's Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 18th Edition, 1885(3) 2865. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under: "The only guideline for the Magistrate to exercise his discretion under this section is the interests of justice. Interests of justice is, however, a very t1exible expression, which may not provide any dependable or decisive guide to the Magistrate. The circumstances which the Magistrate may take into consideration in arriving at his decision in this respect may be - (i) the nature of the offence, simple or complicated; (ii) (iii) the number of the accused and the charges against them." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and after perusing the impugned order and other documents filed by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as provision under section 259 of the Code, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for converting the complaint case filed by the non-applicant pending before the trial Court into warrant case. Before dealing with submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant it would be apt to consider the aims and objects of the NI Act which are as follows: "The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") amended by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, wherein a new Chapter XVII was incorporated by Act No. 66 of 1983 with effect from 1.4.1989 for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of drawer of cheque. Despite civil remedy, section 138 intended to prevent dishonour on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in a bank and induce payee or holder in due course to act upon it. The remedy available in a civil Court is a long drawn matter and unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee [2003(II) MPWN 30= 2004 CrLJ 664 ] Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v. Chicko Ursula D'Souza." 6. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Act, namely, section 138 to 142 have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Notionally the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the Courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time-bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. Therefore, considering the recommendations of the Working Group, along with other representations from vinous institutions and organizations were examined by the Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and other legal experts, there was further amendment in the Act by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act No. 55 of 2002) with effect from 6.2.2003. 7. The amendment in the Act are aimed inter alia at early disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and cheque in an electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee. Director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The other enactments i.e. the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 and Information Technology Act. Director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The other enactments i.e. the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 and Information Technology Act. 2000 have also been amended by the Act No. 55 of 2002. The main aims and objects, for creation of Chapter XVII and further amendment therein (ibid) is to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts of or the reason that it exceeds the arrangement made by, the drawer, with adequate safeguards to prevent from dishonest drawers. 8. The point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in all these petitions i.e. conversion of summons case into warrant case tested on an anvil of aims, objections and reasons, does not stand in favour of the applicant. The complaint was filed in the year 2000 and yet plea of accused is not recorded. During this period, the Act has been amended by the Act No. 55 of 2002 which came into force with effect from 6.2.2003. By this amendment, new provisions, i.e. section 143 and 147 have been incorporated. All these provisions are regarding procedure. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that in the statute it is not mentioned specifically about the application of provision retrospectively or prospectively then the procedural provisions will have retrospective effect in the pending cases. Section 143 gives power to the Court to try cases summarily. This section has a mandatory effect and the provisions start from non obstante clause. This means that provisions of section 259 of the Code regarding warrant trial shall have no application in the case for trying the offence falling under the Act. This is further strengthened by the provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Code. Section 4 of the Code says that when in the statute there is specific provision for trying a particular offence of the said statute then the provisions of the Code shall not apply and the special provisions of the statute or law, that is provisions under section 143 of the Act, are saved by saving provisions of section 5 of the Code. Subsection (3) of section 143 of the Code has also saved for expeditious trial and endeavour shall be made to conclude trial within six months from the date of filing of complainant. There is no room of doubt that for the purposes of trial of an offence falling under the Act, provisions of summary trial of section 262 to 265 of the Code would be applicable and the summary trial cannot be converted in the warrant trial. Therefore, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for application of summary trial or summons trial into warrant trial would have no application for the purposes of trying the cases falling under section 138 of the Act. . 9. Apart from this, legal and factual position of conversion of cases filed by the non-applicant into warrant cases would not file within three categories as enumerated in Sohani's Commentary mentioned in para 4 hereinabove. The nature of offence is of simple and not complicated that is why statute, prior to 6.2.2003, has prescribed the procedure of summons trial and after amendment by Act No. 55 of 2002 with effect from 6.2.2003, given power to the Court to try the cases summarily. The evidence adduced by the parties could be by way of filing the affidavit as per provisions under section 145 of the Act and on the application of the prosecution or the accused the Court may summon or examine the person giving the evidence as to the facts contained thereunder. Because of simple nature of offence and little number of witnesses and documents which are required to be proved, the large number of accused in the trial would not make any difference and obstruction in summary trial/or summons trial. In view of provisions of section 146, Court shall presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque on the production of bank's slip or memo having thereon the official marking denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured unless and until such fact is disapproved. 10. This provision shows that examination of concerned bank employee to prove bank's slip or memo is also not necessary or mandatory. 11. To understand the spirit of provisions from section 138 to 147 of the Act, section 139 plays vital role. 10. This provision shows that examination of concerned bank employee to prove bank's slip or memo is also not necessary or mandatory. 11. To understand the spirit of provisions from section 138 to 147 of the Act, section 139 plays vital role. The provision of this section give power to the Court to presume unless the trial is proved that the holder of the cheque received cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for discharge in whole or in part or in debt or other liability. The burden is on the drawer to rebut this presumption. The Supreme Court exhaustively considered object behind insertion of Chapter XVII in the Act specially sections 138 and 139 in the case of Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. Chicko Ursula D'Souza [2004 SCC (Cri) 499]. Profitably, these can also be looked into Joseph Jose v. J. Baby, Puthuval Pura vidom Poothoppu [ 2002 CrLJ 4392 ], wherein the Supreme Court has ruled that burden of proof as to cheque has not been issued for legal debt or liability, is always on accused. In this view of the matter, complainant is not required to adduce number of witnesses and bulk of documentary evidence. 12. Apart from the fact and legal position stated hereinabove these petitions are under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code wherein inherent to Dowers of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and rarest in rare case, petitions have been filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting the prayer of the applicant to convert summons case into Warrant case. Therefore, this Court does not find any abuse of process of Court of law to invoke inherent powers in favour of the applicant. Thus, the petitions are not having any merit and substance and the same are hereby dismissed. 13. Copy of this order be placed in the aforesaid Misc. Criminal Cases. Petitions dismissed.