High CourtsSingle Bench

Neeraj Agarwal vs Vimlesh Kumar Sain And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 4 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 RAJ CK 0341

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 · Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act, 2018 — Section 143A, 143A(5)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4071, 4073, 4074, 4075, 4076, 4077 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 508 words
1.

This bunch of miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the accused petitioners against the orders dated 20.10.2018 and 12.11.2018 as well as the order dated 28.5.2019 whereby the petitioners were asked to deposit 20% of the amount of the cheque which is said to have been dishonored in terms of the amendment made in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 under Section 138 and Section 143 A (5) vide Amendment Act of 2018.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present petitions is no more res integra in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in G.J. Raja Versus Tejraj Surana, AIR 2019 SC 3817 wherein the Apex Court has held that the provisions regarding interim compensation as laid down under Section 143 A (5) is prospective in operation and would be invoked only in cases where offences under Section 138 is said to have been committed after coming into force the Amendment Act of 2018.

3.

Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute with the aforesaid submissions but however submits as the matter has been pending for long, directions may be issued for disposal of the cases expeditiously.

4.

I have considered the submissions and in the case of G.J. Raja (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the identical issue and has held as under:-

"22. In our view, the applicability of Section 143 A of the Act must, therefore, be held to be prospective in nature and confined to cases where offences were committed after the introduction of Section 143A, in order to force an accused to such interim compensation.

24.

In the ultimate analysis, we hold Section 143- A to be prospective in operation and that the provisions of said 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 in the statute book. Consequently, the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court are required to be set aside. The money deposited by the Appellant, pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court, shall be returned to the Appellant along with interest accrued thereon within two weeks from the date of this order."

5.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the orders passed by the learned trial court dated 20.10.2018 & 12.11.2018 and the order dated 28.5.2019 demanding 20% of the amount of the cheque is held to be illegal and unjustified as the cheques honoured prior to coming into force of the amendment.

6.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The aforesaid orders dated 20.10.2018, 12.11.2018 and 28.5.2019 are set aside.

However taking into consideration the nature of the cases and the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act, it is expected from the trial court to decide the cases expeditiously not later than a period of 1 year henceforth. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.

7.

A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.