Final order bar on same application prevents recall of interim compensation direction; later substitution is without jurisdiction.

Once an order on an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act had already been passed, the Magistrate could not recall, substitute, or pass a second order on the same application because Section 362 CrPC barred alteration of the earlier order. The later order was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside, with the original interim compensation direction restored. The compliance mode was modified so that the accused was required to deposit 10% of the cheque amount in court within six weeks, to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank until disposal of the case.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the trial court could pass a second order on the same application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act after an earlier order had already been made; (ii) whether the accused could be directed to deposit the interim compensation amount in court instead of paying it in the manner directed by the earlier order.

Issue (i): whether the trial court could pass a second order on the same application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act after an earlier order had already been made.

Analysis: The earlier order had already determined the application under Section 143A. Once that order existed, the Magistrate had no power to recall or substitute it on the same application. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred alteration of the already passed order, and the later order was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The second order dated 01.03.2021 was liable to be quashed and the earlier order was restored.

Issue (ii): whether the accused could be directed to deposit the interim compensation amount in court instead of paying it in the manner directed by the earlier order.

Analysis: The accused sought permission to deposit the amount in court till disposal of the case. Since the request was considered in the setting of interim protection and the earlier direction under Section 143A was restored, the Court modified the mode of compliance by directing deposit of 10% of the cheque amount in court and investment in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit until disposal.

Conclusion: The accused was directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount in court within six weeks, with the amount to be kept as fixed deposit till disposal of the case.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the later order of the trial court was set aside, and the original interim compensation direction stood revived with modified mode of deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A trial court cannot recall or substitute its earlier order on the same application once it has been finally passed, and any subsequent order in breach of the statutory bar on alteration is without jurisdiction.

---