JUDGMENT

This is an original petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the complainant in C.C.1336/2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate – XII, Thiruvananthapuram. That complaint was laid under Sections 190(1)(a), 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cr.P.C. for short, and also Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Ext.P1 is the complaint preferred by the petitioner against the respondent. The precise allegation is that himself and the respondent are friends, that during the period from April 2016 to November 2016, the respondent had borrowed a total amount of Rs. 25 lakhs from him for his personal needs on the undertaking that it would be repaid within one year. According to the petitioner, after the said one year when the amount was demanded back, the respondent issued two cheques, one for Rs.15 lakhs and the other for Rs.10 lakhs, both dated 01.02.2018 drawn on Killippalam branch of the Indian Overseas Bank. When the cheques were presented for encashment, both the cheques returned dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, by lawyer notice, the respondent was alerted about the return of the cheques and demanded back the amount, still the amount was not paid and thus cause of action had arisen on 02.04.2018 and the complaint was laid on 25.04.2018.

2. On service of summons when the respondent did not enter appearance, complaining that the trial court is slow peddling coercive steps, the petitioner moved this Court with O.P.(Crl.) No. 272/2020, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. This Court directed the learned Magistrate to initiate coercive steps against the respondent. The Original Petition was disposed of directing the Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the case within an outer limit of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext.P4 judgment was rendered on 29.09.2020.

3. According to the petitioner, later the respondent appeared before court and was enlarged on bail on 02.12.2020. Copy of the bail order is produced and marked as Ext.P5. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the respondent was released on bail, the trial court turned down his plea for granting compensation under Section 143A of the Act on the short premise that the complaint is dated 25.04.2018, whereas Section 143A of the Act was brought into statute on 01.09.2018 and thus no interim compensation was ordered to be deposited by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, this original petition is filed seeking a relief for directing the trial court to grant interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner before putting the case for trial.

4. I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the crucial date for directing the respondent to deposit the amount is the date of commencement of trial by means of recording the plea or framing charge as provided under Section 143A(1) of the Act. Therefore, once the court has recorded the plea of the respondent, he ought to have been directed to deposit atleast 20% of the cheque amount and failure to do so, would cause injustice to him.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint was filed on 25.04.2018, the amendment to the Act was brought into force with effect from 01.09.2018 and therefore, date of commencement of the trial has no application in the case. In this connection, he relied on the decision reported in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana [2019 (4) KHC 201 (SC)]. He said that Section 143A of the Act has only prospective operation. The learned counsel also pointed out that in Sufiya v. Abdul Sathar K.M. and Another [2019 KHC 5635] and also Rajan Arjunan v. M/s. KLM Axiva Finvest Ltd., Idukki and Another [2020 (3) KHC 184] this court has followed the decision in Raja's case (supra).

7.