The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between Section 143A and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and their respective applicability in directing the deposit of interim compensation.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2021, whereby the lower Appellate Court had directed the petitioner to make a deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the Trial Court on 06.10.2021 in appeal bearing No. CRA-296 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018/ 21.01.2020 titled as 'Randhir Singh Versus Amar Singh etc'.

2. Facts of the case in brief would show that respondent No.1/complainant had filed a criminal complaint NACT 241/2016 against the petitioner under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 4th April, 2016 alleging therein that the petitioner was having friendly relations with him due to which a friendly loan to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- was advanced in January 2015. Cheque bearing No.000002 dated 22nd January, 2016, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was issued by the petitioner in discharge of the liability from his account in the HDFC Bank, Tuhana. Upon presentation of the said cheque, the same was returned dishonored with the bank return memo bearing the remark 'funds insufficient' dated 26th February, 2016. A legal notice dated 11th March, 2016 was served upon the petitioner, however, on account of non-payment despite receipt of the legal notice, the complaint in question was instituted.

3. The parties led their respective evidence and upon consideration thereof the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal passed a judgment of conviction dated 28th September 2018 and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 08 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in terms of Section 357(3) CrPC to respondent No.1/complainant within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent-complainant claiming that the petitioner (appellant therein) be directed to pay interim compensation. While considering the same, the lower Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of the cheque towards compensation as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that directions to deposit 20% as compensation, amounts to retrospective application of the statutory mandate. He contends that the petitioner should not be called upon to deposit the said amount as Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was incorporated in the statute after the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction.

6. The said argument of the petitioner is noticed to be rejected inasmuch as the application for compensation has been filed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is a separate and distinct provision, empowering the lower Appellate Court to direct a convict to deposit interim compensation. The said provision is distinct from the provision incorporated under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a provision relating to mandatory predeposit before an appeal can be entertained and be heard on merits. The scope of both the provisions is distinct and independent of each other. Besides, the consequence and manner of enforcement of the said provisions is also separate. While failure to make a pre-deposit necessarily results in non-consideration of the appeal on merits and rendering it liable to be dismissed, the non-payment of the interim compensation, so assessed by the Court, would have a separate procedure for seeking execution of the said order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also examined the said aspect in the judgment passed in Criminal Appe