Point of law: the question of pleading guilty or not as required under newly inserted Section 143-A of the N.I. Act arises only when the substance of the accusation is explained to the petitioner under Section 251 Cr.P.C. in the Trial Court

ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. Assailing the order dated 16.7.2019 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, passed in Crl. MP No. 972 of 2019 in CC No. 105 of 2019, whereby, a condition was imposed at the time of granting bail directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in the Court within two months of his release on bail, this criminal petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is the accused in CC No. 105 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur. He is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act"). After the Trial Court took cognizance of case against him and issued summons to him for his appearance in the Court, it appears that he has refused to receive the summons. Therefore, Non-Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.) was issued against him to secure his presence in the Court. The said N.B.W. was executed and the petitioner was arrested and he was produced before the Trial Court. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. When he has applied for bail before the Trial Court, the Trial Court by its order dated 16.7.2019 enlarged him on bail on certain conditions. As per Condition No. 2, he was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the Court within two (02) months from the date of his release on bail.

3. The petitioner now seeks to set aside the said Condition No. 2 imposed against him at the time of granting bail to him.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the assumption that the newly inserted Section 143-A in the Negotiable Instruments Act, which came into force on 2.8.2018, enables the Trial Court to direct or order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount that the present condition was imposed by the Trial Court at the time of granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that even as per the said amendment, it is only when the accused pleads not guilty in a summary trial or in summons case or when upon a framing of a charge in any other case, the stage of directing the accused to pay interim compensation would arise. In the instant case, the said stage has not arisen, therefore the impugned condition is illegal and thereby prayed to set aside the same. He would also submit that as the cheque amount is Rs. 22,00,000/-, 20% of cheque amount would be Rs. 4,00,000/- (sic Rs. 4,40,000/-) and it is onerous condition for the petitioner to comply with the same and on that ground also, he would pray to set aside the said condition.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant, while vehemently opposing the petition, she would submit that the Trial Court did not impose the said condition while invoking Section 143-A of amended provision of N.I. Act and the said condition was imposed for the purpose of granting bail to him and as it is part of the bail conditions imposed against the petitioner, he is bound under law to comply with the same and deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the Court. Therefore, she would pray for dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and he would also submit that the petitioner has to comply with the bail conditions and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. As can be seen from the record, after cognizance of the case was taken under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner refused to take the said summons. Therefore, N.B.W. was issued against him to secure his presence in the Court. On execution of the said N.B.W., the petitioner was arrested and he was produced before the Trial Court. Thereafter, he was reman