Court Rules on Retrospective Application of Sections 143-A and 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act

M/s Ginni Garments and another, Gold Field Shiksha Sanstha and another, Shashi Adlakha and another, Dr. Shrikant Bhutani, Amritpal Singh, Baldev Singh, Bhagat Singh, Gajraj Singh And Ram Mehar Versus M/s Sethi Garments, Dr. Shrikant Bhutani, M/s Mahalakshmi Innovation Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Dr. Shrikant Bhutani, S.D. Jain (now deceased) through his LRs, Dr. Shrikant Bhutani

M/s Ginni Garments and another, Gold Field Shiksha Sanstha and another, Shashi Adlakha and another, Dr. Shrikant Bhutani, Amritpal Singh, Baldev Singh, ... Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act to pending trials.
2. Applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to pending appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 143-A to Pending Trials

Arguments by Petitioners:
- Petitioners argued that Section 143-A, which imposes an obligation on the accused to pay interim compensation, is substantive and cannot be applied retrospectively to pending cases. They cited various judgments to support that laws imposing new obligations cannot be applied to ongoing cases unless explicitly stated.

Court's Analysis:
- The court examined whether Section 143-A is substantive or procedural. It noted that Section 143-A imposes a substantive obligation on the accused to pay interim compensation, recoverable under Section 421 of Cr.P.C., which can lead to attachment and sale of properties.
- The court emphasized that this section creates a new liability, affecting the substantive rights of the accused. Since the amendment does not explicitly state retrospective application, it cannot be applied to pending trials.
- The court highlighted that Section 143-A does not streamline trial procedures but imposes a standalone liability, making it substantive rather than procedural.

Conclusion:
- Section 143-A of the Act is substantive and cannot be applied retrospectively to pending trials. The orders of the Trial Courts directing the accused to deposit interim compensation are set aside.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 148 to Pending Appeals

Arguments by Petitioners:
- Petitioners argued that Section 148, which requires the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation during the appeal, is substantive and should not apply to pending appeals. They contended that this provision imposes a new obligation, affecting their rights.

Court's Analysis:
- The court distinguished between substantive rights and procedural mechanisms. It noted that while the right to appeal is substantive, the procedures governing appeals, including conditions for suspension of sentence, are procedural.
- The court observed that Section 148 does not affect the appellant's substantive right to defend or prosecute the appeal. It provides for the return of deposited amounts with interest if the appellant is acquitted.
- The court emphasized that the provision of Section 148 modifies the existing procedure for recovery of fines under Sections 421 and 424 of Cr.P.C., making it more favorable to the appellant by allowing partial deposits.
- The court concluded that Section 148 is procedural and applies to all pending appeals, as it does not impose new substantive obligations but modifies the existing recovery procedure.

Conclusion:
- Section 148 of the Act is procedural and applies to all pending appeals. The orders of the Appellate Courts directing the deposit of 20% or more of the fine or compensation are upheld.

Final Orders:
- Petitions challenging the orders under Section 143-A are allowed, and the respective orders are set aside.
- Petitions challenging the orders under Section 148 are dismissed, and the respective orders are upheld.

Directive:
- The Registrar General is directed to ensure that a copy of this judgment is sent to all judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh dealing with cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to prevent unnecessary litigation.