Interim compensation under Negotiable Instruments law cannot be expanded into extra disabilities beyond the statute's enforcement mechanism.

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act authorises a trial court in a Section 138 prosecution to direct interim compensation within the statutory limits, with recovery to follow the mechanism under Section 421 CrPC. The Calcutta HC noted that the order was passed in a pending complaint when the accused's counsel was present, and found no legal prejudice from the manner in which the application was decided. It also held that non-payment of interim compensation cannot be used to impose extra disabilities, such as denial of cross-examination rights, beyond what the statute expressly provides. The procedurally regular order was therefore upheld within the statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision on the ground of alleged denial of hearing and alleged misuse of a security cheque.

Analysis: Section 143A permits the trial court to direct interim compensation in a prosecution under Section 138, and the statutory scheme limits the amount, prescribes the time for payment, and provides recovery in the manner of a fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order was passed in the pending Section 138 proceeding after the accused's counsel was present, and the court found no legal prejudice flowing from the manner in which the application was decided. The provision does not contemplate that non-payment of interim compensation can be used to impose additional disabilities such as denial of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The impugned order was therefore found to be consistent with the statutory framework and not vitiated on the grounds urged.

Conclusion: The order granting interim compensation under Section 143A did not warrant interference and was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute prescribes a specific mode for exercising a power and for enforcing the consequence of non-compliance, the court cannot add further disabilities or disturb a procedurally regular order passed within that statutory framework.

---