This matter is listed for admission.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the Trial Court has erred in struck off the defence of

the petitioner herein and the same amounts to violating the

principles of natural justice and also violates Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and right to fair trial has not been given,

presumption of innocence has not been considered and

prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the

present case, Section 143A of N.I. Act order itself is being an

interim compensation order made at the stage of pretrial and the

same had caused a serious prejudice to the accused/revision

petitioner and the amended provision only helps the Courts to

take adverse inference against the accused persons in a pretrial

stage. Moreover, it will defeat the valuable right available to the

3

accused as per law and it is not the meaning that the

accused/revision petitioner has committed the crime or accepted

the accusation made in the complaint and the interim

compensation payable under this Section may be recovered

under Section 421 of Cr.P.C and unfortunately the Trial Court

had not followed the procedure established by law and instead of

that straightaway convicted the revision petitioner and the same

is nothing but an illegal and arbitrary and also against the well

settled provisions of law and hence, it requires interference of

this Court.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

support of his arguments filed a memo along with citations but

the said citations are not pertaining to Section 138 of N.I. Act

under which the statement of the accused has not been recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and hence, the judgments relied

upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the

case on hand. The main contention of the petitioner9s counsel is

that accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was not

recorded by the Trial Court and the very approach of the Trial

Court is erroneous. But the Trial Court in paragraph 5 of the

4

order held that the complaint is a summary trial and recording of

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with and

for the defence evidence, accused failed to cross-examine PW1

and it was also observed that on 19.01.2019, the counsel for

accused failed to appear before the Court and inspite of issuance

of NBW, they have not filed any application under Section 145(2)

for adducing defence evidence and hence, defence evidence is

taken as no evidence. Since accused has not at all cross-

examined PW1, the evidence of PW1 is unchallenged, accused

has violated the mandatory provision of Section 143A of N.I.Act,

hence, defence evidence was struck off relying upon the decision

reported

in

AIR

2014

SC

2528

in

INDIAN

BANK

ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS vs UNIION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS wherein the Apex Court considered Sections 138, 143,

145 of N.I. Act in a summary trial and the Trial Court also

considered the material available on record which was marked

on behalf of the complainant i.e., Exs.P1 to P9 and in paragraph

12 of the order, the Trial Court held that if really, accused had

not at all borrowed the loan in question, he would not issued

Exs.P1 and P2-cheques to the complainant for discharge of the

loan and also not adduced defence evidence and also not cross-

5

examined PW1 and he has not disputed the issuance of cheques

at Exs.P1 and P2. It is also emerged in the records that accused

has not paid the amount as ordered by the Trial Court to pay the

interim compensation and hence, the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that accused had committed the offence punishable

under Section 138 of N.I. Act and convicted him imposing fine of

Rs.21 lakh and in default of payment of said fine amount, he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was

filed before the Appellate Court on the very same ground that

statemen