2022 (1) TMI 1480 - HC - Indian Laws

Payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - retrospective application or not - HELD THAT - It is deemed appropriate to allow the instant miscellaneous petition on the following terms that the provision contained in Section 143 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act has no retrospective application as decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in G.J. Rana Vs. Tejraz Surana 2019 (8) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Supreme Court after analysis of the provision has ruled that Section 143 is prospective in operation and that the provisions of Section 143-A can be applied or invoked only in cases where the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after the introduction of said Section 143-A under the statute book. Indisputably the cheque dated 09.06.2017 was dishonored and it is evident that the cause of action had arisen prior to the commencement of the said provision. The order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Special Magistrate No. 7 Negotiable of Instruments Act Cases Jaipur Metro Jaipur and the subsequent order dated 27.02.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit the interim compensation of Rs. 1, 00, 000/-. The other content of the order dated 04.04.2019 would remain intact. The trial Court may proceed further in accordance with the provisions of law. Petition allowed.

Summary

In the case before the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Judge Farjand Ali, J., the appellant challenged the orders dated 04.04.2019 and 27.02.2020 issued by the Special Magistrate No. 7, Negotiable Instruments Act Cases, Jaipur Metro, regarding the payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant argued that the provision under Section 143-A, effective from 01.09.2018, should not apply retrospectively to offenses that occurred prior to this date, specifically in 2017.The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in G.J. Rana Vs. Tejraz Surana, which clarified that Section 143-A is prospective and applicable only to offenses committed after its introduction. The court agreed with this interpretation, noting that the dishonored cheque dated 09.06.2017 predated the enactment of Section 143-A, and thus, the directive to deposit interim compensation was "not in accordance with law."Consequently, the High Court allowed the miscellaneous petition, quashing the orders requiring interim compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- while maintaining the rest of the order dated 04.04.2019. The trial court was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law, and the stay application was disposed of.