JUDGMENT :

The following question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition:-

(i) Whether an order for payment of interim compensation under the Negotiable Instrument Act can be enforceable under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 as a public demand?

FACTS

2. The respondent No.4, namely Arun Kumar, (referred to as the private respondent) trader of paddy, wheat etc. allegedly delivered goods worth Rs.1,26,75,600/-to the petitioner, namely Sunil Kumar in the period of 23.08.2018 to 30.08.2018. As consideration, petitioner issued a cheque no.170288 on 15.03.2019 of Punjab National Bank, Aurangabad which on presentation was dishonoured. Private Respondent sent a legal notice and failure to comply subsequently filed Complaint Case No.319 of 2019 on 16.04.2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act).

3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III Aurangabad vide order dated 21.11.2019 upon consideration of facts and the record, passed an order of interim compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-under Section 143A of the NI Act to be paid by the petitioner herein to the private respondent, within a period of sixty days from the date of order. Subsequently, an order for execution was passed on 28.01.2021 where noting that sufficient time had passed since the original order, extension could not be granted and Section 421(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked and a warrant was issued to the Collector, Aurangabad authorizing him to realize the above stated amount from the moveable and immovable of the petitioner herein.

4. Pursuant to the above order, the Collector, Aurangabad forwarded the same to the District Certificate Officer, Aunrangabad for suitable action, who, registered Certificate Case No.100 /2021-22 and issued notice dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure-4, Page-28) calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within a period of thirty days.

5. In the submissions made before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Recovery Act) does not have any application, whatsoever, in the present case. In other words, a jurisdictional vice vitiates such proceedings.

6. It is noted here that though a separate challenge to the order for interim compensation is pending consideration before this Court bearing No. Cr. Misc. No.15524 of 2020 titled as Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar & ors but as on date such order is enforceable.

7. Before proceeding to the issue at hand, it would be fit to refer to and/or extract the relevant law for ready reference.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

8. In Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341, Hon’ble the Supreme Court extensively dealt with the aims, object and purpose of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (20 of 2018). It observed that “The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) was enacted to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques. The said Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of dishonour of cheques. However, the Central Government has been receiving several representations from the public including trading community relating to pendency of cheque dishonour cases. This is because of delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings. As a result of this, injustice is caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque. Such delays compromise the sanctity of cheque transactions. 2. It is proposed to amend the said Act with a view to address the issue of undue delay in final resolution of cheque dishonour cases s