2022 (1) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - whether the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act are prospective in operation and same can be applied to the proceedings, which were pending adjudication prior to introduction of the aforesaid provision in the statute books? - HELD THAT - It is quite apparent that if any, in terms of Section 143-A can only be granted in the cases, which came to be instituted after introduction of Section 143 in the Statute Book - Since in the case at hand, complainant instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Act, prior to 1.9.2018, by which time, amended Act had come into operation, order passed by the learned trial court, directing the accused to pay interim compensation, cannot be held to be valid. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Prospective application of Section 143-A - Validity of directing accused to pay interim compensation - Challenge to order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, addressed the issue of the prospective application of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case involved a challenge to an order directing the accused to deposit interim compensation under Section 145(2) of the Act. The core question was whether the provisions of Section 143-A could be applied to proceedings initiated before its introduction in the statute books. The petitioner argued that since the provision was inserted through Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018, the lower court erred in ordering the accused to pay interim compensation in a case initiated prior to the amendment.

The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, alleging dishonor of a cheque issued by the accused. The court, invoking its power under Section 143-A, directed the accused to pay interim compensation. The petitioner contended that a previous judgment by the same court had established the prospective nature of Section 143-A, citing the case of Vinod Kumar v. Mukesh Kumar. In that judgment, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana, which clarified that Section 143-A could only be applied to cases where the offense under Section 138 was committed after the provision's introduction.

The High Court reiterated the principle established in the Vinod Kumar case, emphasizing that Section 143-A operates prospectively and can only be invoked in cases where the offense under Section 138 occurred after the provision's enactment. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order directing the accused to deposit interim compensation, as the complaint had been filed before the provision came into effect. The petition was allowed, and the challenged order was quashed and set aside, disposing of all pending applications in the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the prospective application of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that interim compensation under the provision could only be granted in cases where the offense under Section 138 occurred after the provision's introduction. The court's decision in this case aligned with previous rulings on the matter, providing clarity on the temporal scope of Section 143-A and ensuring consistency in its application.