Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.773/SS/2018
Mr. Mandip Singh Bajaj, ….. Complainant
Vs.
Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, ….. Accused
ORDER BLEOW EXH.NO.13
(Passed on 26/09/2023)
1. The complainant filed this application under section 143(A)
of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2018 and thereby
sought the interim compensation @ 20% of the cheque amount on the
ground that the accused appeared and he pleaded no guilty.
2. Per contra, the accused filed the say and resisted the claim
on the ground that the present application yet to be filed after
introduction of provisions of section 143 (A) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and therefore, this application is not tenable.
3. Having perused the record, I heard the learned advocates
for both the sides. Following points are formulated for my
determination.
SR.
NO.
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Whether the complainant is entitled
for interim compensation during the
pendency of the trial?
Negative
2] What order? The application is
rejected.
REASONS
4. At the outside, it is pertinent to note that this is a criminal
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
This is a summons case. It was filed on 15/02/2018. In pursuance of
the process issued under Section 204 of Cr. P.C., the accused appeared
before the Court. He did not plead guilty. Thus, the accused claims
further trial.
5. Section 143 (A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act
empowers the Court to order the drawer of the cheque to the interim
compensation to the complainant if the drawer pleads not guilty to the
allegations made in the complaint which is a summary trial or summons
case. It is settled that the compensation amount shall not exceed 20%
of the amount of the cheque in dispute. This provision came to be
inserted vide Amendment Act 20 of 2018 w.e.f. 01/09/2018. It is
settled that the effect of this section is prospective in nature and
confined to cases where the offence were committed after its
introduction. Thus, having regard to the settled provision of law this
Court is of humble opinion of the present application is not
maintenable. Hence, I record my finding in negative for point no.1 and
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
Sd/
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Date : 26.09.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --