2021 (6) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - prohibition on account of non-payment of interim concession - HELD THAT - The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the order passed by the learned Trial Court to the extent of prohibiting the accused to produce his defence in the event of non-payment of interim compensation as per Para-5 of the order dated 27.08.2019 was not legal and proper, and therefore, it was quashed and set aside. Remaining order passed by the learned Trial Court of interim compensation was not disturbed by the Revisional Court for getting the interim compensation as prayed under Section 143(A)(1) of the N.I. Act. It is worried by the applicant that if the interim compensation would not be paid by the accused, he would suffer great loss and therefore, order passed by the learned Trial Court was legal and valid. Under section 143A(5), interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant would be entitled to get the remedy available under the Act and approached the Competent Authority to recover the amount of interim compensation awarded to him as per the order passed by the Court-below by availing remedy provided under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 03.03.2020
2. Restoration of Para-5 of the order passed below Exh. 8 in Criminal Case No. 65061 of 2019
3. Stay of the judgment and order dated 03.03.2020
4. Legal validity of the order prohibiting the accused to produce defense

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with an application seeking to quash and set aside a previous order and restore a specific paragraph in a criminal case. The applicant filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, related to a cheque bounce case. The original complainant had filed an application under Section 143(A)(1) of the N.I. Act, requesting the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount to present a defense. The accused challenged this order before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. The Sessions Judge held that prohibiting the accused from presenting a defense due to non-payment of interim compensation was not legal, thus quashing that part of the order. However, the requirement to pay interim compensation remained valid under Section 143A(5) of the Act.

The judgment highlighted the importance of the legal procedure in cases involving financial matters like cheque bounce. It emphasized the need for accused individuals to comply with court orders, such as paying interim compensation, to ensure fair proceedings. The court clarified that while the accused's defense could not be restricted solely based on non-payment of interim compensation, the obligation to pay such compensation remained enforceable under the law. The judgment underscored the applicant's right to seek remedies for non-compliance, including recovery of the compensation through the Competent Authority as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the application, ruling that the order prohibiting the accused from presenting a defense solely due to non-payment of interim compensation was not legally valid. However, it affirmed the validity of the requirement to pay interim compensation as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the applicant's entitlement to seek remedies for non-compliance through the appropriate legal channels. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding legal procedures and obligations in financial dispute resolution cases to ensure fair and just outcomes for all parties involved.