Supreme Court quashes order on retrospective application of Section 143A

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Magistrate's order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation in a Summary Criminal Case. The Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to offenses committed before its introduction. As the offenses occurred before the amendment and the statutory notice deadline, the Magistrate's decision was deemed a legal error. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing the prospective application of Section 143A to offenses committed after its enactment and directed to expedite the trial.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount as compensation.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation in a Summary Criminal Case. The complainant alleged that the petitioner issued nine cheques for various amounts, which were returned by the banker with an "Exceed Arrangement" endorsement. The complainant sent a statutory notice, and upon non-payment by the petitioner, lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The respondent initially moved an application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, seeking direction for the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. This application was rejected due to the petitioner's plea not being recorded. Subsequently, another application (Exh.24) was filed after recording the plea, which was contested by the petitioner. However, the Magistrate allowed the application on the grounds of the amendment to the N.I. Act, leading to the writ petition challenging this decision.

The petitioner argued that Section 143A of the N.I. Act is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to offences committed before its introduction. Citing the case of G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana, the petitioner contended that the amendment could not be invoked for offences committed prior to its enactment. The Supreme Court in the mentioned case held that Section 143A is prospective and can only be applied to offences committed after its introduction, leading to the conclusion that the Magistrate erred in allowing the application (Exh.24).

Considering the timeline of events where the cheques were issued before the amendment, the offence was completed after the statutory notice deadline, and the amendment came into effect post the offence date, the Court found that the Magistrate's decision was a mistake in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the Magistrate's order was quashed, the application (Exh.24) was rejected, and directions were given to expedite the trial. The judgment emphasizes the prospective nature of Section 143A and its application to offences committed post its enactment.

---