Full Order Text
Interim Order 1 · 27 Sept 2024 · CNR MHMM190150472018
Order Details: Order Pdf Text: 1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS 44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI. C.C.No.2446/SS/2018 Mr. Sanjay Prakash Gharkar ….. Complainant Vs. Mr. Sandesh Ashok Patekar ….. Accused ORDER BLEOW EXH.NO.06 (Passed on 27/09/2024) 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 is not tenable under the provisions of section 143 (A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, this application is liable to be rejected. 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 -- 1 of 2 -- 2 complaint filed under Section 138 r/w. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is a summons case. It was filed on 14/06/2018. 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 provisions of the law, this Court is of humble opinion of the present application is not maintainable. 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 : 27.09.2024 Judicial Magistrate First Class, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. -- 2 of 2 --
