Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment inserted in Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by Act 55 of 2002, enabling extension of limitation on sufficient cause being shown, applied retrospectively to a complaint filed before the amendment and, if not, whether the complaint proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The amendment creating a proviso for condonation of delay in filing the complaint was not expressed to operate retrospectively and nothing in its language indicated an intended retrospective effect. The legal position is that statutes affecting substantive rights ordinarily operate prospectively, with a presumption against retrospectivity unless the legislative intent clearly provides otherwise. On the facts, the complaint had been instituted before the amendment came into force, and the respondent had not pleaded any basis to apply the amended provision to the earlier complaint. The High Court therefore could not sustain the complaint by applying the later amendment to an earlier cause.
Conclusion: The amendment to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not apply retrospectively, and the complaint proceedings were rightly quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment affecting limitation in criminal complaint proceedings is prospective unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication provides retrospective operation.