REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1190 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 541 of 2008]

Subodh S. Salaskar …Appellant Versus Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the proviso appended to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, is retrospective in operation is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 330 of

2007.

3. The relationship between the parties hereto was that of a borrower and creditor. A financial loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- was obtained by the appellant in 1996 from the respondent No. 1, which according to him has been paid off. Two post dated cheques, one bearing No. 460157 dated 6.12.1996 for a sum of Rs. 26,900/- and the other bearing No. 460158 dated 28.09.2000 for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-, however, were handed over to him.

4. Appellant contends that the amount of loan was repaid in cash. Admittedly, the cheques were presented before the bank on 10.01.2001. They were returned to the respondent No. 1 by the bank alleging that no such account, in the name of the appellant was in operation. A legal notice dated 17.01.2001 was sent by speed post asking the appellant to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- failing which legal action including criminal action would be taken against him.

5. A complaint petition alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act, however, was filed only on 20.04.2001.

6. Indisputably, the complaint petition was sought to be amended for adding Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the complaint petition.

The said application was allowed by an order dated 14.08.2001.

7. Appellant filed an application for discharge on 16.12.2003 inter alia on the premise that the said complaint petition was barred by limitation. It was dismissed by an order dated 14.11.2006. The revision application filed by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed. A criminal writ petition filed by the appellant marked as Criminal Writ Petition No. 330 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment holding:

(i) The question as to whether the complaint is barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Even otherwise as a result of amendment of Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act even if delay has been caused in filing the complaint, the Magistrate has power to condone the delay;

(ii) Although the Magistrate could not have allowed amendment of the complaint petition but as it discloses sufficient averments in regard to commission of an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court was justified in issuing the process in respect of the said provision also.

8. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that :

(i) the complaint petition was barred by limitation, which would be evident from the admitted facts;

(ii) the proviso appended to Clause (b) of Section 142 being substantive in nature cannot be held to be retrospective in operation;

(iii) allegations made in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, no case has been made out for taking cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code;

(iv) in any event, as the principal complaint being for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act was not maintainable, the application for amendment to insert Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code was also not maintainable.

9. Mr. Santosh Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, submitted that from a perusa