2020 (8) TMI 683 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition for interim compensation release in criminal appeal dismissed under NI Act. Order not reflective of trial merits.

PURSHOTTAM MAHESHWARI HUF Versus SATISH KUMAR

The court dismissed the petition for interim compensation release in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888, as the ... Permission for withdrawal of petition - Dishonor of Cheque - non-retrospective application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition seeking liberty to seek redressal before the learned Trial Court by filing a fresh application under Section 148 of the amended Negotiable Instruments Act, 2018 brought into force w.e.f. 01.09.2018 both in relation to the applicability thereof or exercise of discretion in terms of Section 148(1) of the said enactment qua the quantum of the amount to be deposited in terms of Section 148(1) being a minimum of 20%. Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Issues:Interim compensation release in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 - Applicability of Sections 143A and 148 of the Act - Retrospective application of Section 143A - Withdrawal of petition for seeking redressal under Section 148.Analysis:The petitioner sought the release of 40% of the compensation awarded in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888. The petitioner argued that even if later found not entitled, they would repay with interest. The petitioner contended that the provisions of Section 148(1) had not been followed and that the Appellate Court should have directed a minimum deposit of 20% in addition to any interim compensation under Section 143A. However, the respondent clarified that the petitioner had only filed an application under Section 143A, not Section 148.The petitioner claimed that Section 143A should apply retrospectively, but the respondent disagreed, citing a Supreme Court verdict that Section 143A should be prospective. The court accepted the non-retrospective application of Section 143A based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Regarding Section 148, the court referred to another Supreme Court judgment stating its retrospective applicability. As the petitioner's application was under Section 143A, they withdrew the petition to file a fresh one under Section 148 for the Trial Court's consideration.The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek redressal under Section 148. The court emphasized that this order did not reflect on the trial's merits, which would be addressed before the Appellate Court if an application under Section 148 is filed. The Appellate Court was directed to dispose of any such application within 45 days. The District and Sessions Judge were instructed to ensure timely disposal of the petitioner's application under Section 148. The petition was disposed of accordingly.