TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused person to defend himself in a criminal case. This is the reason why the legislature had thoughfully used the word may under Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, it is not possible to read the word shall into the word may which is used in the provision. A careful reading of the order passed by the Court below, in the present case, shows that the Court below has focussed more on the issue of the prospective / retrospective operation of the amendment. The Court has not given any reason as to why it is directing the accused persons to pay an interim compensation of 20% to the complainant - As held by this Court, the discretionary power that is vested with the trial Court in ordering for interim compensation must be supported by reasons and unfortunately in this case, it is not supported by reasons. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the respondent to read certain reasons into the order, cannot be done by this Court, since this Court is testing the application of mind of the Court below while passing the impugned order by exercising its discretion and this Court cannot attempt to supplement it with the reasons argued by the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974),shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section. 2. Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was inserted by Act 20 of 2018 and was brought into effect from 01.09.2018 onwards. It will be relevant to extract the reply given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance, while replying to the parliament, on the debate that took place at the time of introduction of the Bill through which this amendment was brought in. THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (SHRI SHIV PRATAP SHUKLA) replying to the discussion, said: 15 Members expressed their views on this Bill. Mostly everyone has said that earlier when cheques used ot bounce, then people used to fear. Now this will be reduced. At this time there are about 16 lakh cases of cheque bounce in the subordinate and district courts in the entire country and of these, about 32 thousand cases have gone upto the High Courts. This provision was made also to ensure that such cases do not go upto High Courts. An amendment has been brought in it so that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(the Act) was enacted to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques. The said Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of dishonour of cheques. However, the Central Government has been receiving several representations from the public including trading community relating to pendency of cheque dishonour cases. This is because of delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings. As a result of this, injustice is caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in court proceedings to realize the value of the cheque. Such delays compromise the sanctity of cheque transactions. 2. It is proposed to amend the said Act with a view to address the issue of undue delay in final resolution of cheque dishonour cases so as to provide relief to payees of dishonour cases so as to provide relief to payees of dishonoured cheques and to discourage frivolous and unnecessary litigation which would save time and money. The proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. 8. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that as the criminal complaints against the appellants under Section 138 of the N.I.Act were lodged / filed before the amedment Act No.20/2018 by which section 148 of the N.I.Act came to be amended and therefore amended Section 148 of the N.I.Act shall not be made applicable. However, it is required to be noted that at the time when the appeals against the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were preferred, Amendment Act No.20/2018 amending Section 148 of the N.I.Act came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2018. Even, at the time when the appellants submitted application/s under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence pending appeals challenging the conviction and sentence, amended Section 148 of the N.I.Act came into force and was brought on statute w.e.f. 1.9.2018. Therefore, considering the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I.Act and whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2018. If such a purposive interpretaion is not adopted, in that case, the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act would be frustrated. Therefore, as such, no error has been committed by the learned first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation as imposed by the learned trial Court considering Section 148 of the N.I.Act, as amended. 4. The effect of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding its applicability to the pending cases, need not require a very detailed discussion and this Court can safely adopt the very same reasoning given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. The amendment through which Section 143A was brough into force will be applicable even to pending proceedings. If such a purposive interpretation is not given to this provision, it will defeat the very purpose of amendment which was brought in as a benefitial piece of legislation for the complainant prosecuting a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. The next question that arises for consideration is the manner in which this provision is to be put into operation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve intentionally evaded service for a long time and only after repeated attempts, appears before the Court, or the enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming materials which the accused person could not on the face of it deny or where the accused person accepts the debt or liability partly or where the accused person does not cross examine the witnesses and keeps on dragging with the proceedings by filing one petition after another or the accused person absonds and by virtue of a non-bailable warrant he is secured and brought before the Court after a long time or he files a recall non-bailable warrant petition after a long time and the Court while considering his petition for recalling the non-bailable warrant can invoke Section 143A(1) of the Act. This list is not exhaustive and it is more illustrative as to the various circumstances under which the trial Court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 143A(1) of the Act, by directing the accused person to pay the interim compensation of 20% to the complainant. 9. The other reason why the order of the trial Court under Section 143A(1) of the Act, should contain reasons, is because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-944 of 2019, referred supra. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the only point that was argued before the Court below was whether the amendment is prospective or retrospective. Therefore, the Court below has confined its order only to the said argument. The learned counsel submitted that even otherwise in the present case both the accused persons have received the loan amount through RTGS transaction and have issued cheques drawn in favour of the respondent. Both the accused persons did not give any reply inspite of the receipt of the statutory notice issued by the respondent. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these factors were taken into consideration by the trial Court while allowing the petition filed by the respondent and had directed the accused persons to pay an interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount. 16. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that a beneficial legislation which aims at addressing an undue delay in disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act and which discourages frivolous and unnecessary litigation and which enhances the faith in transacting through cheques, cannot be defeated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
