B.A. PATIL, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 148 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, ('Act' for short) r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the amount in deposit made by the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.5021/2013 as per the order passed by this Court dated 24.4.2018. The said application is accompanied with affidavit of the respondent-complainant. In the said affidavit it is contended that in order to discharge the legal enforceable debt, two post dated cheques dated 2.5.2013 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- had been issued, but subsequently the said cheques were dishonoured and thereafter a legal notice was issued. As the accused did not pay the amount, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court below after considering the material placed on record, by the order dated 27.10.2016 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.70,00,000/-. The trial Court also held that in default of payment, the accused shall also undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months and out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.69,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as a compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.67/2016 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 24.3.2018. Against the said judgment, the present revision petition is filed by the accused with an application in I.A.No.1/2018 praying to suspend the sentence imposed against him.

2. This Court by an order dated 24.4.2018 allowed I.A.No.1/2018 by suspending the sentence and directing the petitioner-accused to deposit 75% of the cheque amount before the trial Court.

3. Now, I.A.No.3/2018 is filed by the complainant-respondent praying to release the amount deposited by the accused. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the complainant has been deprived of the money for more than seven years and he had performed the marriage ceremony of his daughter by borrowing the hand loan. In order to clear the said loan and marriage expenses, he required the said amount. On these grounds he prayed to allow the application and to release the amount in deposit.

4. The said application has been seriously contested by the petitioner-accused by filing his objections contending that the provisions of Section 148 of the Act cannot be invoked by the respondent-complainant since imposing of the fine was passed by the trial Court prior to amendment, i.e. on 27.10.2016. At that point of time, the provisions of Section 148 of the Act were not in existence and it came into force only on 2.8.2018 and it is not having any retrospective effect. It is further contended that the said application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

6. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-complainant that Section 148 of the Act is a specific provision which supersedes general law and as per Section 401(4) of Cr.P.C., it over shadows the general power and even though it is a revisional power, it is like an appellate power. He further submitted that the law can be given retrospective effect when it is a beneficial legislation. The object of the Act was to give benefit to the complainant who has suffered at the hands of the accused. He further submitted that the trial Court convicted the accused and the first appellate Court has also confirmed the same. Already there is a concurrent finding that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. He further submitted that under Section