AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramendra Jain, J
Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for quashing order dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) of the trial Court,
directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount as per amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') under Section
143-A.
Briefly, respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against petitioner. During its pendency, respondent moved application
under Section 143-A of the Act for directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated
04.01.2020 impugned herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that newly added provision of Section 143-A of the Act is not applicable to the proceedings
already pending in trial Court before its introduction. Therefore, impugned order of the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his
contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in M/s Ginni Garments and another v. M/s Sethi Garments and another,
2019(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 833.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions, this Court finds the instant petition completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to
follow.
Section 148 of the Act was also inserted in the amended Act on 01.09.2018 with prospective effect. However, lower appellate Courts in several cases
directed the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque/compensation amount, treating the said provision retrospective in nature. Consequently, several
accused approached the higher Courts throughout the country. Ultimately, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and
others v. Virender Gandhi, 2019(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 186 held that Section 148 of the Act has retrospective operation and lower Courts can pass
order directing the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque/compensation amount, even in the cases filed prior to the amendment.
In view of dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Surinder Singh Deswal (supra), judgment of this Court in M/s Ginni Garments and another v. M/s
Sethi Garments and another, 2019(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 833, for Section 143-A of the Act, which is pari materia to Section 148 of the Act, has to be
ignored, taking into account that the legislature in its wisdom inserted the aforesaid Sections, considering the hardships of the complainants that even
after legal fight for several years, they gain nothing. By the time, they succeed to reap the fruit of their complaint under Section 138 of the Act, they
spent huge amount, energy and their precious time. Deposit of 20% of the cheque amount in Court is otherwise equitable inasmuch as none of the
parties, even accused, who deposits the same, loses anything for the reason that in many cases, trial Court or the appellate Court converts the same in
some FDR/STDR in a bank, fetching maximum rate of interest with the observation to disburse the same, whosoever, shall finally be entitled to it on
decision of complaint/appeal. In the instant case also, petitioner is not going to suffer any loss, in case, impugned order is modified to the extent that
the amount of 20% shall be disbursed to the respondent-complainant against security/surety.
Ordered accordingly.
Petition stands disposed of.