Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Dharamvir Singh Rawat – Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kishor & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-5123 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Mr. M.K. Pundir, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 148 - Petitioner challenged the order directing recovery of 20% of compensation after conviction under NI Act - Amendments to NI Act by inserting Sections 143-A and 148 permit interim compensation orders - Court found amendments procedural, applicable to pending appeals. (Paras 3-9)
(B) Procedural law - Amendments are generally applicable retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise - The applicability of amendments does not diminish substantive rights of appeal. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of NI Act, sentenced to one year, and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Bail was granted, later challenged by the recovery order for interim compensation following the 2018 amendment.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to apply the amended section retroactively, emphasizing the procedural nature of the amendments and their alignment with existing law.
Issues: Whether the 2018 amendment to the NI Act would apply to pending appeals and if it affects the petitioner's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendment is procedural, thus retroactive in application to pending cases, reaffirming that there’s no infringement on substantive rights of appeal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed to quash bail cancellation. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of conviction and compensation awarded. (Para 2) |
| 3. amendment empowering courts for interim compensation. (Para 3) |
| 4. challenge to order under section 148 ni act. (Para 4) |
| 5. argued that amendment not applicable retrospectively. (Para 5) |
| 6. counterargument on procedural applicability. (Para 6) |
| 7. court's reasoning on procedural nature of amendment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 8. conclusion dismissing the petition. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 17.09.2019 passed by ld. Addl. Sesssion Judge Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, vide which bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and further the 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the Ld. Trial Court has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner under Section 421 of Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that vide judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 08.06.2017, the ld. Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a period of one year for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further, directed him to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, to the respondent/complainant. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of ld. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, within time limitation on 04.07.2017 and the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri after appreciating the submissions, suspended the sentence by admitting the petitioner on bail, vide order dated 06.07.2017.
3. It would be appropriate to mention here that vide notification dated 02.08.2018, the Central Government has amended the Negotiable Instruments Act by inserting Section 143-A and Section 148 in the Principal Act i.e. Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, vide which the Ld. Trial Court as well as Ld. Appellate Court are empowered to direct the accused to make interim compensation/ payment to the complainant, upon filing of complaint or appeal against the conviction. In view of this amendment, vide order dated 17.09.2019, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, ordered to recover the 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the Ld. Trial Court.
4. By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to recover the 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the Ld. Trial Court in view of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner contends that Amended Act or amendment cannot be made applicable upon the pending appeal of the petitioner as it has been filed and entertained by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge before the amendment was notified and came into force. He further contends that it is a settled law that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation, meaning thereby until or unless an enactment or amendment is given retrospective operation, such amendment always has prospective effect. It is submitted that undisputed, there is nothing mentioned in the Amended Act, 2018 about having its effect or applicability retrospectively, hence, the impugned order being against the settled proposition of law, is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 argues that this Court in the case of "M/s Ginni Garments and another v. M/s Sethi Garments and another, 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 833", held that amendment with respect to section 148 of the NI Act is procedural only and hence it would apply to pending cases as well. He further submits that even Hon'ble Apex Court in "Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others" in Criminal
