Dated this the 5^th day of November 2019

Annexure-C order passed by Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod in C.M.P

No.647/2018 in C.C No.311/2018 is under challenge in the

proceedings on hand. C.M.P No.647/2018 was an application

filed by the complainant, in C.C No.311/2018, a prosecution

launched by him under Section 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act,1881 (for short, 'the N.I Act'). The

application was filed under Section 143A N.I Act. The prayer

in the application was that the complainant is entitled to get

20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under

Section 143A N.I Act. The application was opposed by the

accused, the respondent herein, stating that the petitioner is

not entitled to get the relief sought by him. It was contended

that the cause of action to launch the prosecution was

originated and the complaint filed for the purpose was taken

cognizance of in the year 2008. Circumstances being so,

Section 143A introduced into N.I Act by Negotiable

3

Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 which in view of its

prospective operation with effect from 01.09.2018, cannot be

invoked to direct deposit of interim compensation. It is

further contended that, right to get interim compensation is a

substantive right and the new amendment having the effect of

creating a substantive right can only have prospective

operation and for operating retrospectively, the legislature

must have specifically made provision for that. Accordingly,

it is submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 143A N.I

Act ought not to have been invoked in the case on hand. It is

contended that by directing to pay compensation, the court

has exceeded it's jurisdiction to grant it. Accordingly, the

respondent seeks for dismissal of the application.

2.

Having heard the respective counsel on their rival

contentions, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II

(Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod has dismissed the

application. The reason for dismissal of the application are

contained in paragraph 11 of the order, which is extracted

herein below:

4

“The above decisions give us the test to determine

whether a statute is prospective or retrospective in

operation. Provisions which creates a new right or imposes

new obligation on the parties are presumed to be

prospective unless the legislature provides otherwise

expressly or by necessary implication. Section 143 A of N.I

Act imposes a new obligation on the drawer of a cheque to

pay interim compensation to the complainant. Hence, it

creates a new right in favor of the complainant which he

can agitate before a court of law having jurisdiction. So, in

my view, section 143 A of NI Act cannot have retrospective

operation so as to affect the right of parties in the above

case. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

that Section 143 A is applicable to the above accused since

the plea of not guilty of accused was recorded after Section

143 A came into operation, is seems to me as not

sustainable. In my view date of recording plea of not guilty

is not relevant for the purpose of section 143 A, I think,

clause (a) only indicate the stage at which the court can

exercise its powers u/s 143 A. Hence I am in agreement

with the submission made by the learned counsel for the

respondent. That apart, after a perusal the documents

including the cheque in the above case, I feel that this is not

fit case in which 143 A of N.I Act can be invoked. Therefore,

the point is answered against the petitioner.

In the result, the petition dismissed”

3.

Therefore, the reason for dismissal of the

application was the finding of the Judicial First Class

5

Magistrate Court-II(Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod that

Section 143A N.I Act as it creates a new substantive right in

favour of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 142

N.I Act does not have any retrospective operation.

Accordingly, the court found that the invocation of Se