SAFIYA Vs. ABDUL SATHAR.K.M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-C order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod in C.M.P No.647/2018 in C.C No.311/2018 is under challenge in the proceedings on hand. C.M.P No.647/2018 was an application filed by the complainant, in C.C No.311/2018, a prosecution launched by him under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short, 'the N.I Act'). The application was filed under Section 143A N.I Act. The prayer in the application was that the complainant is entitled to get 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A N.I Act. The application was opposed by the accused, the respondent herein, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief sought by him. It was contended that the cause of action to launch the prosecution was originated and the complaint filed for the purpose was taken cognizance of in the year 2008. Circumstances being so, Section 143A introduced into N.I Act by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 which in view of its prospective operation with effect from 01.09.2018, cannot be invoked to direct deposit of interim compensation. It is further contended that, right to get interim compensation is a substantive right and the new amendment having the effect of creating a substantive right can only have prospective operation and for operating retrospectively, the legislature must have specifically made provision for that. Accordingly, it is submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 143A N.I Act ought not to have been invoked in the case on hand. It is contended that by directing to pay compensation, the court has exceeded it's jurisdiction to grant it. Accordingly, the respondent seeks for dismissal of the application.

(2.) Having heard the respective counsel on their rival contentions, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod has dismissed the application. The reason for dismissal of the application are contained in paragraph 11 of the order, which is extracted herein below:

(3.) Therefore, the reason for dismissal of the application was the finding of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II(Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod that Section 143A N.I Act as it creates a new substantive right in favour of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 142 N.I Act does not have any retrospective operation. Accordingly, the court found that the invocation of Section 143A in a case pending since 2008 is strictly forbidden. This Court finds it apposite to extract Section 143 A N.I Act hereunder: