Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Rule. Respondents waive notice through their respective Advocates. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of three orders dated 3.8.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.491 of 2018, 492 of 2018 and 493 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Court directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount of the compensation as a condition precedent to maintain the order of the bail or to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the Sessions Court and prays that the said orders in the Appeals be quashed and set aside.

3. In all the 3 appeals, cheques of different amounts issued to the complainant were bounced. After conviction, the petitioner filed Appeals challenging those orders. The appellate Court at the time of entertaining the appeal directed the accused to deposit 25% of the total compensation and if it is not deposited, the order of suspension of sentence is to be automatically vacated.

4. Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that every convict has a right to appeal. Due to imposition of such condition, his right to appeal and bail is taken away. The right to bail should be unconditional. He submitted the provisions of sections 143A and 148 which are enacted on 12.8.2018 and which came into effect from 1.9.2018 are ultra vires to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that when the offence in this matter was committed and the complaint was filed, at that time, these two provisions were not in existence. This being a substantive law, the said provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. He submitted that if the convict has no capacity to pay, then, he is bound to lose his right to an appeal because of such condition of payment of 20% of the amount of the compensation. He has good case on merits, so, imposing such condition is unjust and against the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence of and of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his submissions, on the point of retrospective effect, he relied on the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Goel vs. Kishan Chand Kaura, (2007) 13 SCC 492. The learned Counsel also relied on the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & anr., (2007) 6 SCC 528.

6. Per contra, the learned APP for Respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 justified the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. They argued that the direction of depositing 20% can be given retrospectively because this is a beneficial legislation which is enacted with an intent to give relief to the complainant. The orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge are in consonance with the scheme of the new provisions under sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are reproduced for ready reference:

"143-A. Power to direct interim compensation. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant -

(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and

(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

(2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque.

(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.

(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall dire