ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the order dated 27.8.2024 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Indore whereby the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in SCNIA No. 3839/2018 rejecting the application under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I.Act' for short) has been set aside.

2. Facts of the case in short are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of JMFC, Indore. According to the respondent/complainant, petitioners demanded Rs. 39,00,000/- for expansion, construction and other works of the school from the respondent who was working as the Principal of the petitioner No. 1/school. Having close relation with the petitioners, respondent gave Rs. 39,00,000/- to the petitioners for a short period. In order to return the aforesaid amount, petitioners issued two cheques bearing No. 000286 dated 25.4.2018 and 000287 dated 30.4.2018 of Rs. 19,50,000/- each in favour of the respondent. Respondent presented the aforesaid cheques in his bank account and they were transferred to the bank account of the petitioners but both the cheques were dishonored. Thereafter notice was served and when the amount was unpaid a complaint was filed.

3. During pendency of the complaint, the respondent/complainant filed an application under section 143A of the N.I.Act seeking direction that the petitioners be directed to pay the interim compensation. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Learned JMFC vide order dated 23.11.2023 has rejected the application on the ground that the provisions of section 143A which came into effect on 1.9.2018 is prospective in operation and the said provision can be applied or invoked only in cases where the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act was committed after introduction of the said section in the statute book. Since the cheques in question were returned unpaid prior to 1.9.2018, therefore section 143A of the N.I.Act does not attract.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent/complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, Indore. Learned sessions Judge upheld the finding of JMFC that the provisions of Section 143A is prospective in operation but the offence is said to have been committed on 4.9.2018 when the petitioners/accused persons failed to make payment after service of notice under section 138 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, actual offence was said to have been committed after introduction of section 143A in the statute on 1.9.2018. Hence, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the JMFC for deciding the amount of compensation. Hence, this revision before this Court by the petitioners/accused.

5. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cheques were dishonored on 23.7.2018. Notice U/S 138 was issued on 20.8.2018 which was received by the petitioners on 24.8.2018 and after expiry of 15 days on 8.9.2018, the complaint was filed on 11.9.2018. Learned Counsel further submits that the offence under section 138 is said to committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him in the bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of the fund. Therefore, the offence is said to have been committed only on 23.7.2018 i.e. prior to the insertion of section 143A of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the learned JMFC rightly dismissed the application and the Sessions Court has wrongly set aside it remanded the matter.

6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in case of G.J.Raja v. Tejraj Surana, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 469 wherein the apex Court in paragraph 23 held that, section 143-A to be prospective in operation and that the provisions of the said section 143-A can be applied or invoked only in cases where the offence under section 138 of the Act was c