9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 688 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - entitlement for Interim Compensation - main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given a hearing by the court - principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - The views of the Hon ble Supreme Court in G.J. RAJA VERSUS TEJRAJ SURANA 2019 (8) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT though on the point of Section 143 N.I. Act being prospective, is relevant to a certain extent in the present case. It was held in the case that It is thus clear that in case an accused, against whom an order to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the Act is passed, fails or is unable to pay the amount of interim compensation, the process under Section 421 can be taken resort to which may inter alia result in coercive action of recovery of the amount of interim compensation as if the amount represented the arrears of land revenue. The extent and rigor of the procedure prescribed for such recovery may vary from State to State but invariably, such procedure may visit the person concerned with coercive methods. The Supreme Court in NOOR MOHAMMED VERSUS KHURRAM PASHA 2022 (8) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT held that The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the Court is thus provided for by the Legislature. The method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is clearly delineated by the Legislature. It is well known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. Thus, in view of the present position of law as laid down, the order under revision being in accordance with law and causing no prejudice to the petitioner/accused, requires no interference by this court - Revision application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the interim compensation order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Alleged misuse of blank signed cheques by the opposite party. 3. Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Summary: Legitimacy of the Interim Compensation Order: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Kolkata, directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court noted that Section 143A allows for interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount, payable within 60 days, and recoverable as a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Alleged Misuse of Blank Signed Cheques: The petitioner argued that the opposite party had taken 16 blank signed cheques as security and misused one of them by filling in an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and presenting it for encashment. The petitioner contended that this act was an abuse of the process of law under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Opportunity of Hearing: The petitioner claimed that the Learned Magistrate did not afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order. However, it was observed that the petitioner's counsel was present but declined to submit anything as his request for an adjournment was not granted. Legal Precedents and Conclusion: The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, which outlines the conditions and recovery methods for interim compensation under Section 143A. The court also cited Noor Mohammad vs. Khurram Pasha, emphasizing that failure to deposit interim compensation should not result in additional disabilities like denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses. Final Judgment: The court found the order under revision to be in accordance with the law, causing no prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the revisional application CRR 557 of 2020 was dismissed, and the order dated 30.09.2019 was affirmed. No order as to costs was made, and all connected applications were disposed of. The interim order, if any, was vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court for compliance.
|
