ORDER :

1. These criminal petitions have been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 04/2/2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.9771/2017 and C.C.No.9330/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

3. Though these two cases are listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. Since two cases are arising out the same fact and law, they have been clubbed together and disposed off by a common order.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that some amount was due from the petitioner/accused, the respondent/complainant demanded the petitioner/accused to clear the outstanding amount. In pursuance of the demand, the petitioner/accused has issued eight cheques and when the said cheques were presented, they were dishonored with the shara “insufficient funds” and thereafter, the legal notice was issued and though the legal notice is served, the petitioner/accused did not paid the amount and as such, the respondent/complainant filed PCR.Nos.434/2017 and 433/2017 respectively before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. Subsequently, sworn statement of the GPA Holder of the respondent/complainant was recorded and the case has been registered in C.C.No.9771/2017 & C.C.No.9330/2017. Thereafter, the GPA Holder was examined as PW.1 and subsequently, the learned Magistrate, by impugned order dated 04.02.2019 by exercising the power under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (‘the Amendment Act’ for short), directed to pay interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount, within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.

Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused is before this Court.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that there is no business transactions and he is not liable to pay any amount. It is his further submission that the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the amendment to Section 143A the Amendment Act has come into force on 02.08.2018, but the present case has been filed and registered in the year 2017. The said notification cannot be given retrospective effect and as such, the said order is not sustainable in law. It is his further submission that though the said provision is not attracted to the pending proceedings, the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions and to set aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently argued and submitted that the impugned order and the materials placed on record clearly goes to show that the accused has not shown any diligence and he has remained absent and even the proclamation has also been issued against petitioner/accused. It is his further submission that the said application to recall the NBW has also been rejected with costs. Taking into consideration the conduct of the accused, the trial Court has passed the impugned orders to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. There is no illegality or irregularity, the same may be confirmed by dismissing the petition. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

8. The only point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is;

‘whether the provisions of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 amended on 02.08.2018 will have any retrospective effect?’

For the purpose of brevity, I quote Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as under;

‘‘143A. Power t