Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies prospectively, prohibiting retrospective application to complaints filed before its enactment.

Order :

1. The issue involved in this petition is “whether the amended provision contained under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would apply on the complaint filed prior to enactment and enforcement of this provision?”

2. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. Hence, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, all these matters have been taken for final disposal and the same are decided by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has submitted three different complaints against the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1881’) on three different occasions i.e. on 28.08.2017, 01.04.2017 and 11.08.2017. Counsel submits that at the time of filing of the complaints under Section 138, there was no provision for the payment of interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant under the Act of 1881.

4. Counsel further submits that the amended provision contained under Section 143A came into force with effect from 01.09.2018, introducing a provision for issuing directions for the payment of interim compensation to the complainant.

5. Counsel submits that the amended provision contained under Section 143A of the Act of 1881, cannot be applied with its retrospective effects on the complaints filed before this amendment. Counsel also submits that the amended provision contained under Section 143A of the Act of 1881 would be applicable upon those complaints filed on or after 01.09.2018.

6. Counsel submits that overlooking the material aspect in the matter, the learned Court below has gravely erred in passing the order impugned directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation that is 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant. Counsel submits that such direction cannot be issued by the Trial Court. In support of his contentions, and he has placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sidharth Jain Vs. Nidhi Financial Services reported in 2023 (4) WLC 719 (Rajasthan). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in order to avoid the delay tactics adopted by the accused persons in payment of the due amount to the aggrieved party, the legislature has brought the said amendment. He submits that Section 143A of the Act of 1881 was brought in picture for issuing directions to the accused to pay interim compensation to the complainant during pendency of the complaint. Counsel submits that similarly, the same provision was kept under Section 148 of the Act of 1881 at the stage of appeal, wherein the same direction of payment of 20% amount of arrears can be issued. Counsel submits that giving interpretation to Section 148 of the Act of 1881, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal & Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in 2019(8) Scale 445 has held that the amended provision of the Section 148 Act of 1881 can be given retrospective effect even upon the complaints filed prior to the amendment. Counsel submits in these circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed an error in passing the order impugned which warrants any interference of this Court.

8. Heard. Considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

9. This fact is not in dispute that the complainant submitted three different complaints under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner before the Trial Court on 28.08.2017, 01.04.2017 & 11.08.2017 respectively with the allegations that the cheques issued by t