Provisions of Section 143A of the N.I. Act are not applicable retrospectively, thus cannot impose obligations for cases predating its enactment.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 1254 of 2024

1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal No.23 of 2018 by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed for not depositing the fine amount of Rs.4,37,500/- in compliance of the order dated 14.08.2018 and also the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2018 passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Bartam, learned S.D.J.M, Pakur in connection with P.C.R Case No.61 of 2017 (T.R No.1000 of 2018) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay the fine amount of Rs.4,37,500/- @ 4% simple interest per annum from the date of issuance of cheque.

2. I.A. No.1254 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Navin Ganjhu, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that it is a case of civil dispute as the petitioner had purchased a land and for which he had paid certain amount in cash to the O.P. No.2 which was received by the O.P. No.2. But, when he applied for mutation then he learnt that he has been cheated by the complainant-O.P. No.2 as the land does not belong to the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since27.01.2025 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that cheque issued by the petitioner has bounced.

7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records of this Criminal Revision Application, it appear to be a case of civil dispute between the parties

8. Considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner namely, Nokibuddin Shekh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Shri Sandeep Kumar Bartam, learned S.D.J.M, Pakur or his Successor Court, in connection with P.C.R Case No.61 of 2017, (T.R No.1000 of 2018).

9. Thus, I.A. No.1254 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Revision No. 135 of 2020

10. However, during course of further argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument only on the point of challenging the appellate order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Appellate Court vide order dated 14.08.2018 directed the petitioner to deposit total fine amount of Rs.4,37,500/-. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court below committed error by directing the petitioner t