The provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which were introduced by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, cannot be applied retrospectively.

( 1 ) UPON the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Eigth Court, Calcutta, directed issuance of summons against the petitioners, one of whom is a public limited company and the other its managing director to answer charges under Section 141, read with Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

( 2 ) IN the petition of complaint, it has been, inter alia, alleged : (a) Against supply of steel rounds to the petitioner company, two cheques bearing No. 1277900, dated January 28, 1989, for Rs. 2,00,000 and No. 1277903, dated February 10, 1989, for Rs. 1,50,000 were issued in favour of the complainant's firm, namely, M/s. Standard Engineering Company, 40, Strand Road, Calcutta-1, by the petitioner-company acting through its managing director, i. e. , the second petitioner, drawn on Indian Bank, Main Branch; Coimbatore. (b) In due course, the said cheques were presented with the complainant's bank, viz. , Oriental Bank of Commerce, Strand Road, Calcutta, and the same were returned with the remarks "exceeds arrangement". (c) On March 13, 1989, the complainant intimated the petitioner-company regarding the dishonour of the cheques and requested issue of a demand draft for the value of the cheques failing which it was told that the cheques would be presented again before the bank. (d) Accordingly, the said cheques were again presented with the complainant's bank on March 29, 1989, and the same were returned with the remark "refer to the drawer" on April 13, 1989. (e) On April 27, 1989, the complainant's firm thereupon issued a notice under-registered post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner-company intimating the dishonouring of the cheques and demanding payment within fifteen days of receipt of the said notice. (f) The petitioner-company, it was alleged, received the notice on May 4, 1989, but did not make payment of the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) and Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) beinj: the value of the cheques within the said fifteen days of receipt of the notice.

( 3 ) ON the above facts, it was alleged that the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 138, read with Section 141, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended.

( 4 ) THE said complaint was filed on June 27, 1989, find the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Eighth Court, Calcutta, issued process against the petitioners to appear on August 11, 1989, to answer the charges under Section 141, read with Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988. On that day, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate examined the accused-petitioner No. 2 to which the accused-petitioner No. 2 pleaded not guilty on behalf of both the accused petitioners.

( 5 ) THE said proceeding has been challenged in this application.

( 6 ) MR. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the proceeding initiated under the aforesaid provisions of the Act is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Amendment Act of 1988 came into force on April 1, 1989, and the alleged offence having been committed long before the said amendment came into force, prosecution in respect of such offence is not maintainable. He has also submitted that, admittedly, two cheques were issued on January 28, 1989, and February 10, 1989, and the said cheques had been dishonoured by non payment on March 13, 1989. The complainant intimated the petitioner-company that the said cheques had been dishonoured. The said cheques were again presented with the complainant's bank on March 29, 1989, and the same were returned with the remark "refer to the drawer" on April 13, 1989. On April 27, 1989, the complainant's firm issued a notice under registered post to the petitioner-company intimating the dishonour of the cheques and demanding payment. It is, therefore, contended