The court applied the provisions of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, to grant interim compensation based on prima facie evidence of the offence under Section 138.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. H. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C and/or 'the Code', for short] against an order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class - II, Kamrup at Amingaon ['the trial court', for short] in N.I. Act case no. 11/2021, whereby, the learned trial court has allowed a petition being Petition no. 692/2022 filed by the complainant -respondent no. 2 seeking interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, by directing the petitioner who is the accused in N.I. Act case no. 11/2021, to pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant.

3. Issue notice, returnable in 4 [four] weeks.

4. As Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent no. 1, no formal notices need to be issued to the said respondents. Mr. Barua shall furnish an extra copy of the revision petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Sarma within 3 [three] working days.

5. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 registered post with A/D as well as by usual process within 3 [three] working days from today.

6. It is the respondent no. 2 who as the complainant, has instituted the complaint case, N.I. Act case no. 11/2021 alleging commission of an offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, by the petitioner with the allegation that a cheque bearing no. 009549 dated 21.01.2021 issued for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and drawn on an account maintained by the petitioner at Axis Bank Limited, Hengrabari, Guwahati, stood dishonored on its presentation due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 - complainant after serving a demand notice upon the petitioner, instituted the complaint case and the learned trial court after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 had issued process to the petitioner to stand the trial as an accused.

7. It is during the pendency of the complaint case, the respondent no. 2 - complainant had preferred the petition, Petition no. 692/2022 seeking interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount as per the provisions of Section 143A, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The petitioner had submitted written objection against the Petition no. 692/2022. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and perusal of the records, had found that the signature of the accused on the said cheque was not in dispute and upon perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial court had found that the respondent no. 2 - complainant had been able to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner-accused. With such observations, the learned trial court directed the petitioner/accused to pay the 20% of the cheque amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant within 60 [sixty] days from the date of this order.

8. In the instant revision petition, the petitioner in paragraph 5 has averred that in his reply dated 17.03.2021 to the demand notice dated 02.03.2021, received from the respondent no. 2 - complainant, he had claimed that he had only taken a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the respondent no. 2 - complainant and not Rs. 10,00,000/-, as alleged in the demand notice dated 02.03.2021 and as reflected in the cheque bearing no. 009549 dated 21.01.2021.

9. I have considered and also perused the contents of the reply dated 17.03.2021, on being produced by Mr. Barua, wherein the accused did not specifically deny about the signature appearing in the cheque no. 009549 dated 21.01.2021. In such view of the matter, this Court considering the presumption incorporated in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, is not inclined to pass an