IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Faizal Abdul Samad S/o A.I. Abdul Samad – Petitioner
Versus
A.N. Sasidharan S/o Late Narayanan – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 8132 of 2023
Decided On : 17-11-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing payment of interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused had issued cheques for a property purchase but failed to honor them, leading to a complaint and subsequent order for interim compensation.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate's order lacked reasoning and set it aside, directing reconsideration in line with the requirement for a speaking order when fixing interim compensation.Issues:
Whether the magistrate's order for interim compensation was sustainable without providing reasons.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while exercising discretion under Section 143A, the magistrate must provide a speaking order justifying the amount of interim compensation.Final Decision:
The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the magistrate.ORDER :
1. This Crl. M.C. is filed challenging Annexure-A6 order, by which, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara directed to pay an interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act).
2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 3117/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara. A complaint was filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure-A4 is the complaint. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner/accused approached the complainant and agreed to purchase an apartment 9/440-GI in the 5th Floor of the AIRPORT SUITES BLOCK 111 of Nedumbassery Grama Panchayath and an extent of right of 0.0376 undivided share in 5.66 Ares of land. The total consideration of the said property was fixed as Rs. 37 lakhs is the contention and the accused had given an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs as advance to the complainant is the further case. It is submitted that, as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner/accused on 18.04.2015. At the time of registration, it is admitted that the complainant received an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from the accused towards the total consideration of Rs. 37 lakhs. Towards the balance sale consideration, the petitioner/accused issued three cheques bearing no. 304745, 304746, 304747 for Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 8 lakhs respectively, drawn on Federal Bank, North Paravur Branch. It is stated that an agreement is also executed in favour of the complainant on 18.04.2015 whereby the petitioner/accused agreed, admitted and undertook to arrange the amount covered by the said cheques by clearing the cheques within 11 months.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused sought further period of five months to pay the cheque amount and it is endorsed in the original agreement. After repeated requests of the complainant, the accused assured that he had arranged Rs. 28 lakhs in his bank account to encash the cheques. Accordingly, the cheques were presented at the bank, but the cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. The statutory notices were issued by the complainant, but even then, the amount has not been paid. Hence, the complaint was filed as evident by Annexure A4. The learned magistrate after taking cognizance issued process to the accused and when the case was posted on 5.9.2022, the learned magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to pay an interim compensation of 20% of Rs. 28 lakh which is the total amount of three cheques in this case, within sixty days from that order. Aggrieved by the order granting interim compensation, this Crl. M.C. is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the learned magistrate has not considered the matter in detail before passing an order under Section 143A of the NI Act and the learned magistrate mechanically passed the order. Therefore, Annexure A6 order passed by the learned magistrate is unsustainable.
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the order passed by the learned magistrate. The learned counsel submitted that the learned magistrate is empowered to pass orders under Section 143A of the NI Act even without an application to that effect. According to the 1st respondent/complainant, no speaking order is necessary from the side of the learned magistrate while invoking the powers under Section 143A of the NI Act. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. For the resolution of this question, it will be better to extract Section 143A of the NI Act:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Proc
Interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act is discretionary, requiring consideration of both parties' merits and the opportunity for a defense, which was not provided in this case.
The discretion to grant interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act must be supported by reasons and should be based on well-recognized principles.
Whenever a discretionary power is to be exercised by Court, same has to be exercised on well-recognized principles supported by reasons.
[The provisions of Section 143A of the NI Act, 1881 are directory and grant discretion to the court to award interim compensation, which must be exercised based on a prima facie evaluation of the mer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the learned Magistrate must exercise discretion in granting interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ....
Power under Section 143A NI Act to direct interim compensation is discretionary, requiring prima facie evaluation of case and defence, with brief reasons recorded; mechanical orders lacking applicati....
Word ‘may’ appearing in Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not discretionary but directory in nature.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.