2019 (11) TMI 1703 - HC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of statute - Dishonor of cheque - effect of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - prospective effect or retrospective - section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act are prospective in operation or same can be applied to the proceedings, which were pending adjudication prior to introduction of section 143A provision in the statute books? - HELD THAT - Section 143A, whereby provision has been provided for payment of interim compensation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, came into force with effect from 1.9.2018, by way of Amending Act No. 20 of 2018. Hon'ble Apex Court in G.J. RAJA VERSUS TEJRAJ SURANA 2019 (8) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT , has categorically held that Section 143A is prospective in operation Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that provisions of Section 143A can be applied/invoked only in cases, wherein offence under Section 138 was committed after introduction of Section 143 in the Statute Book. The impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Prospective or retrospective application.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding its prospective or retrospective application to pending proceedings. The petitioner challenged the direction to pay interim compensation under Section 143A, inserted by Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018, in a case initiated in 2013. The case involved a dishonored cheque and jurisdictional complexities due to subsequent judgments by the Apex Court. The court noted that Section 143A, providing for interim compensation, came into force on 1.9.2018, and cited the Apex Court's judgment in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, holding Section 143A as prospective. The court emphasized that Section 143A applies only to cases where the offense under Section 138 was committed after the introduction of Section 143A in the statute book.

The court referred to the Apex Court's decision in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, which clarified the prospective nature of Section 143A and its application to cases post its introduction. The judgment differentiated Section 143A from Section 148, which applies at the appellate stage after conviction, and highlighted that Section 143A does not create fresh disabilities but complements existing provisions like Sections 421 and 357 of the Code. The court concluded that Section 143A is prospective and can be invoked only when the offense under Section 138 occurred after the enactment of Section 143A. Consequently, the impugned order directing interim compensation was set aside, and the deposited money was to be returned to the appellant with interest.

In conclusion, the court set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate directing interim compensation under Section 143A, emphasizing the prospective application of the provision. The case was disposed of, and the court urged expeditious trial proceedings to conclude within six months. An authenticated copy of the judgment was directed to be supplied to the petitioner's counsel for reference and compliance with the court's decision.