Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies prospectively, requiring trial courts to provide reasoned orders for interim compensation.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 22.10.2018, by which the applicants have been directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as well as the order 20.12.2018 declining to extend the time to deposit the aforesaid amount, both passed by the learned 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Riyaz R. Parmar for learned advocate Mr.N.K. Majmudar appearing for the applicants that the applicants are the original accused in the main proceedings instituted by the complainant in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Surat who took cognizance upon the same and issued process against the accused on 23.09.2017. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide its order dated 22.10.2018, ordered that 20% of the cheque amount be made over by the applicants to the respondent-original complainant as interim compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act, failing which their rights to defend will be closed. Thus, the applicants were directed to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- by 05.12.2018. Thereafter, as the applicants could not be able to make arrangement of the said amount, they preferred an application, seeking extension of the time limit for depositing such amount, which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 20.12.2018.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Parmar submits that both the orders passed by the learned trial court are erroneous one and required to be set aside as the private complaint was lodged by the complainant in the year 2017 whereas the amendment came into force with effect from 2018, and it is the settled law that the effect of any amendment should be prospective and not retrospective. Even the amended section itself does not say anything that the same is applicable with retrospective effect and to the cases filed prior to the amendment came into force. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court are illegal, arbitrary and erroneous one and, therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside. To buttress his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Parmar has relied upon the decision in the case of G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana , reported in (2019) 19 SCC 469 .

5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave appearing for the original complainant submits that it is an admitted position of fact that complaint came to be filed somewhere in the year 2017, and after considering all the materials available on record, the trial court has taken cognizance upon the same and issued process against the accused which was duly served to the accused. The accused appeared before the concerned court and their plea also came to be recorded. Learned advocate Mr. Dave further submits that, however, during the interregnum period, i.e, in the year 2018, a new section was inserted in the statute by way of amendment, and on the strength of the said amendment, the learned trial judge has passed the order specifically directing the applicants to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. However, learned advocate Mr. Dave fairly submits that considering the latest position of law as well as the materials available on record, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned APP Mr. Soham Joshi