A court's discretion in determining interim compensation must be justified with cogent reasons, and failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is facing trial in 1CC Case No. 81 of 2020 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party-complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act. The said case was instituted as a cheque for Rs.11,81,773/- issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of complainant- opposite party towards cost of some products was dishonored by the bank. By order dated 01.06.2022, learned S.D.J.M. directed the petitioner to pay interim compensation of Rs.2,36,355/-, amounting to 20% of the total cheque amount. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the court of Sessions being Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2022. Learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 09.09.2022 dismissed the revision. The said order is impugned in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

3. Mr. Pasayat would argue that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the provision under Section 143-A of the NI Act provides for grant of interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount. It is not necessary that the compensation amount shall be equal to 20% of the cheque amount in every case. Since the cheque amount is substantial, directing the petitioner to pay 20% thereof at this stage would cause serious difficulty to him. In support of his contention, Mr. Pasayat has relied upon a decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case of Nazir Ahmed Chopan v. Abdul Rehman Chopan , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 986 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Narayanaswamy and another v. Shri Ramesh J.S. (Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2022, decided on 31.03.2022).

4. Mr. S.K.Das, on the other hand, has argued that the grant of interim compensation as envisaged under Section 143-A of the NI act is meant to protect the interest of the complainant. Since trial in such cases takes such a considerable time, the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated Section 143-A so that at least the complainant would be ultimately compensated at least to the extent of the interest earned on the amount which would offset the fall in the value of money at the time of disposal of the case. Mr. Das further argues that the statutory restriction has to be mandatory followed. He has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Noor Mohammed vs. Khurram Pasha , reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652 and Kapur Singh v. State of Haryana and another , reported in AIR 2021 SC 3060 .

5. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provision at the outset, i.e., Section 143-A which reads as follows:-

143 A. Power to direct interim compensation.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant-

(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and

(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

(2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque.

(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under subsection (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.

(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer th