The court ruled that a directive for interim compensation under Section 143A cannot serve as a condition of bail, as this violates the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The supplementary affidavit as filed today on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

2. The legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 01.12.2023 and 08.01.2024 as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar in CR Case no. 379 of 2022 are the subject matters of the instant revisional application.

3. By the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 learned trial court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short) directed the accused to deposit 20 per cent of the cheque amount on the day of further cross-examination of PW 1 in default the defence of the accused would be struck off.

4. By the subsequent impugned order dated 08.01.2024 the trial court rejected the petition for time as filed by the accused on the day of cross-examination/further cross-examination of PW 1 and fixed a date for argument.

5. The accused felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

6. At the time of hearing, Mr. Shantanu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist/accused at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 14 of the instant revisional application being a copy of the order dated 30.08.2022 as passed by the learned trial court in the said proceeding that is in CR 379 of 2022. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that from the said order dated 30.08.2022 it would reveal that the learned trial court while allowing the prayer for bail imposed a condition upon the accused/petitioner to pay 20 per cent of the cheque amount.

7. At this juncture, attention of this Court is again drawn to Section 143A of the said Act. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist/accused that the learned trial court is within its competence to pass a direction for payment of interim compensation not exceeding 20 per cent of the amount of cheque as involved in the said proceeding, however, that cannot be a condition for grant of bail.

8. Drawing attention to the supplementary affidavit as filed today it is further submitted on behalf of the accused/revisionist that in terms of the order dated 30.08.2022 the accused furnished bail bond of Rs. 2,000/- which would be evident from the pleadings as made in the supplementary affidavit as well as from the certified copies of the ‘jamin nama’ as have been annexed in the said supplementary affidavit.

9. It is submitted further that the learned trial court while passing the said two impugned orders have failed to visualize the true implication of Section 143A of the said Act and thus committed serious error of law in not allowing the revisionist/accused herein to further cross-examine PW 1. It is thus submitted on behalf of the revisionist that it is a fit case for setting aside the orders dated 01.12.2023 and 08.01.2024 as passed by the learned trial court in CR 379 of 2022.

10. Per contra, Ms. Acharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/complainant contended that there was no illegality and/or irregularity in the aforementioned two orders impugned inasmuch as the direction for payment of 20 percent of cheque amount was passed by the learned trial court on the basis of an application as made by the complainant under Section 143A of the said Act.

11. It is further submitted by Ms. Acharya that since the accused before the learned trial court had not cross-examined PW 1 despite getting several opportunities learned trial court is very much justified in passing the said two impugned orders.

12. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State in his usual fairness submits be