The court held that the provision of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not directory in nature, and the trial court can consider the application on merits even in the absence of a reply from the accused.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Interim Compensation - Section 143-A
Fact of the Case:

The applicants were directed by the trial court to pay 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act without granting them an opportunity to be heard. The applicants challenged this order, contending that the provision of interim maintenance is directory in nature and the court should have considered various aspects before passing the order.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the copy of the application under Section 143-A was provided to the applicants on 3.9.2022, and they had ample time to file a reply but failed to do so. The court also noted that the order passed by the trial court was not properly worded, but it did not commit any material illegality in considering the application on merits as the applicants did not file any reply.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in directing the applicants to pay 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act without granting them an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that although the order passed by the trial court was not properly worded, the applicants had been provided with the copy of the application under Section 143-A and had ample time to file a reply, but they failed to do so. In the absence of any written or verbal objection, the trial court was within its right to treat the allegations as true and award the interim compensation.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, dismissing the application.

ORDER

It is submitted by counsel for applicant that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the trial Court by order dated 19.10.2022 has directed the applicants to pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of interim compensation as provided under Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is submitted by counsel for applicants that provision of interim maintenance is directory in nature and while deciding the said application the Court has to take various aspects into consideration and thus, the opportunity to oppose the said application should have been granted to applicants.

Applicants have not filed the copy of complete order sheets of the Trial Court to show that copy of application was given on 19.10.2022 only and prior thereto he had never prayed for time to file reply of application filed under Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Since the trial is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur, office is directed to requisition the original record of SCNIA No.1202/2021 today itself.

Call this case on today at 04:00 p.m. (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE LATER ON :-

1. The original record of the trial court was received and it has been perused.

2. It was the contention of counsel for the applicant that copy of the application filed under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was supplied on 19.10.2022 and in spite of the submission made by counsel for the applicants that he may be heard and he may be granted time to file reply, the trial Court did not grant time to the applicants to file reply and passed the order thereby directing the applicants to deposit 15% of interim compensation amount.

3. Since the aforesaid submission which was made by counsel for the applicants was slightly not in accordance with the settled procedure, therefore, this Court had called the original record from the original record.

It is clear that on 3.9.2022 an application under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed and a direction was given by the trial Court to supply a copy of the same to the applicants and the case was fixed for 26.9.2022. On 26.9.2022 the applicants were absent and accordingly an application under section 317 of Cr.P.C. was filed which was allowed. But, one thing is clear. The applicants did not file their reply to the application under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 19.10.2022 the impugned order was passed. The manner in which the order has been written, at the most this Court can say that it is not happily worded. Even the Presiding Judge did not put a short signature on the sentence which was subsequently added in handwriting.

4. Taking clue from the order dated 19.10.2022 an argument was developed by counsel for the applicants that copy of the application filed under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was supplied on 19.10.2022 and, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2024) 4 SCC 419, it was submitted that opportunity of hearing was not given to the applicants and the provision of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act are directory in nature. It is further submitted that while passing an order under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial Court is expected to pass a reasoned order.

5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicants.

6. So far as the contention of counsel for the applicants that copy of the application filed under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not supplied to the applicants on 3.9.2022 is concerned, the same is misconceived and is contrary to the record. From the record it is clear that copy of the application filed under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was marked as I.A.No.1/2022 was received by the counsel for the applicants on the very same day and the said application also bears the acknowledgement of receipt of said application. Once the application filed under section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document