Interim compensation under cheque dishonour law is mandatory in effect, with courts expected to award it within the statutory ceiling.

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as mandatory in effect, because its object is to curb delay in cheque dishonour prosecutions and provide immediate relief to the complainant during pendency of Section 138 proceedings. The court held that the word "may" is directory in this context, so the court is expected to direct interim compensation within the statutory ceiling of twenty per cent, rather than treat the power as an unfettered discretion. The cited precedent on reasons for quantification did not make the grant itself discretionary. The interim compensation order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was mandatory or discretionary, and whether the orders of the courts below warranted interference.

Analysis: Section 143A was inserted to curb delay in cheque dishonour prosecutions and to provide immediate relief to the complainant during the pendency of proceedings under Section 138. The Court held that the legislative object, the wording of the provision, and the scheme of the Act show that the power to award interim compensation is not a bare discretion to be exercised or declined at will. The use of the word "may" was held to be directory in the sense that, in the circumstances contemplated by the provision, the Court is expected to direct payment of interim compensation, subject to the statutory ceiling of twenty per cent. The Court also noted that the cited precedent requiring reasons for quantification does not make the grant of interim compensation itself discretionary. On the facts, the trial court and revisional court had acted within the framework of Section 143A.

Conclusion: The provision was treated as mandatory in effect, and the interim compensation order was upheld.

---