SAROJAMMA Vs. R.VENKATARAMANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Criminal Petitions are filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the orders passed by the learned LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.776/2018, 775/2018, dated 21.3.2020, respectively, whereunder the orders passed by the XII Additional CMM Court in CC.Nos.21964/2018 and 21966/2018 dated 7.9.2018 have been confirmed by dismissing the Criminal Revision Petitions.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused and Sri Dinesh Gaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent- complainant.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (' N.I. Act ' for short). After recording of the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners-accused to deposit of 20% of the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as an interim compensation within 60 days as contemplated under Section 143A of the N.I. Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused-petitioners herein, preferred Criminal Revision Petitions and the same were dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court without application of mind and without seeing the provision of law. It is his further submission that Section 148 of the N.I. Act is a specific provision which supercedes general law and Section 143A of the N.I. Act has been amended by Notification dated 2.1.2018 and it came into force only on 2.9.2018, whereas the alleged transactions between the petitioners-accused and the respondent-complainant have taken place on 14.6.2018 and 15.6.2018, i.e., prior to the amendment to Section 143A of the N.I. Act. It is his further submission that the Notification dated 2.1.2018 cannot be given effect to retrospectively. It is his further submission that the act constituting an offence of the accused has occurred prior to the amendment or insertion of the amendment on 1.9.2018 and as such Section 143A of the N.I. Act cannot be given retrospective effect. It is his further submission that the said issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 989, wherein it has been observed that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The trial Court without looking into the said proposition of law, has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly allowed the application of complainant and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the said order of the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions.