Section 143A NI Act: Prospective Application of Interim Compensation

The court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies prospectively and only to cases where the offense under Section 138 was committed after the provision's introduction. Relying on the precedent set in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, the court set aside the order for interim compensation in a case initiated before the provision's enactment. The deposited money was to be returned to the appellant with interest, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial proceedings to conclude within six months.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Prospective or retrospective application.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding its prospective or retrospective application to pending proceedings. The petitioner challenged the direction to pay interim compensation under Section 143A, inserted by Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018, in a case initiated in 2013. The case involved a dishonored cheque and jurisdictional complexities due to subsequent judgments by the Apex Court. The court noted that Section 143A, providing for interim compensation, came into force on 1.9.2018, and cited the Apex Court's judgment in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, holding Section 143A as prospective. The court emphasized that Section 143A applies only to cases where the offense under Section 138 was committed after the introduction of Section 143A in the statute book.

The court referred to the Apex Court's decision in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, which clarified the prospective nature of Section 143A and its application to cases post its introduction. The judgment differentiated Section 143A from Section 148, which applies at the appellate stage after conviction, and highlighted that Section 143A does not create fresh disabilities but complements existing provisions like Sections 421 and 357 of the Code. The court concluded that Section 143A is prospective and can be invoked only when the offense under Section 138 occurred after the enactment of Section 143A. Consequently, the impugned order directing interim compensation was set aside, and the deposited money was to be returned to the appellant with interest.

In conclusion, the court set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate directing interim compensation under Section 143A, emphasizing the prospective application of the provision. The case was disposed of, and the court urged expeditious trial proceedings to conclude within six months. An authenticated copy of the judgment was directed to be supplied to the petitioner's counsel for reference and compliance with the court's decision.

---