IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, the trial court is not mandated to provide additional reasons for awarding interim compensation once the statutory conditions are satisfied.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By means of this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 20/12/2022 (Exh.19) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon in Summary Criminal Case No.694/2022 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent/original complainant under Sec. 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'N.I.Act') awarding interim compensation to the tune of 20 per cent of the cheque amount of Rs.15, 45, 500.00 and thus directing the petitioner/ accused to deposit an amount of Rs.3, 09, 100.00 within a period of sixty days. The parties will be hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.

3. Inviting my attention to the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar vs. Laxmikant Govind Joshi, reported in 2023 (1) Mh.L.J. 147, Mr. R. D. Dhande, the learned counsel for the accused submits that while deciding the Application u/s 143A of the N.I.Act, the Court has to assign reasons for awarding interim compensation which can be anywhere up to 20% of the cheque amount. He further submits that in the present case the Court has not assigned such reasons.

4. The learned counsel further submits, by referring to the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashwin's case (supra), that the N.I.Act does not provide any remedy to the accused as regards restitution of interim compensation if the accused is acquitted. This aspect was considered by the Court while answering the question whether the provisions under Sec. 143A of the N.I.Act is mandatory or directory. The coordinate Bench held that the provisions do not specify as to what would be the effect if the restitution is not made by the complainant and is silent as to what steps would have to be taken by the accused in a case where the accused is acquitted. The Court observed that the legislature in its boundless wisdom, may revisit the provisions for this purpose.

5. Mr. Dhande, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the below cited judgments, to contend that appropriate reasons must be assigned by the trial Court while granting interim compensation, in terms of Sec. 143A of the N.I. Act :-

(a) L.G.R. Enterprises and others vs. P. Anbazhagan: 2019 (3) MLJ (Cri) 423;

(b) Rajesh Soni vs. Mukesh Verma : 2021 (3) Crimes 113;

(c) Deccan Charters Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat : 2023 ACD 490.

6. Thus, the main attack against the impugned order is that the trial Court has not assigned any reason while granting interim compensation.

7. Mr. Bhavin Suchak, the learned Counsel for the respondent/ complainant has rightly argued that, in fact, the trial Court has considered the judgment passed by this Court, in Ashwin's case (supra) and has in paragraph 6 reproduced that part of the order passed by this Court which deals with the probable considerations while passing interim order, which reads thus:

<WXY>"6...... Grant of interim compensation, would be at the discretion of the Court, based upon consideration of various factors, such as (a) whether the requirements of Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act were fulfilled, (b)whether the pleadings disclose the drawing of the presumption, (c) whether the proceedings were within limitation and, (d) whether prima facie a legal debt or liability was disclosed from the complaint or the notice of demand preceding it."</WXY>

The trial Court has then noted that the complainant before it fulfills all the requirements as quoted under clause (a) to (d) above.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the trial Court ought to have given reasons to indicate that 20% interim compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified. In other words, the submission is that in addition to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) above, the trial Court should assign reasons