RAJENDRA KUMAR JAAT Vs. LOKENDRA SINGH SENDHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.has been preferred against the order dtd. 6/8/2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, District Dewas in Cri.Complaint Case bearing No.SCNIA No.20/2018, whereby applicant was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount under Sec. 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act").

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent filed a criminal complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, District Dewas alleging that cheques bearing No.000054 dtd. 21/9/2017 amounting Rs.7,40,000.00 and cheque bearing No.000055 dtd. 21/11/2017 amounting Rs.7,50,000.00 were given by the applicant to the respondent in lieu of the dues in the light of the terms and conditions embodied under the agreement dtd. 27/8/2015, which was duly executed between the applicant and respondent for purchase of Tractor. On the said criminal complaint case bearing SCNIA No.20/2018 was registered against the applicant, wherein vide impugned order dtd. 6/8/2018 applicant was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within sixty days from the date of order in the light of the provisions embodied under Sec. 143A of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. In compliance to the aforesaid order applicant deposited 20% of the aforesaid cheque amount on 29/11/2018 and 6/12/2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana (Cri.Appeal No.1160 of 2019 @ SLP (Cl.) 3342 of 2019) has held that provisions of Sec. 143A of N.I.Act will be applied only in case where the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act was committed after the enforcement of the amended provisions of Sec. 143A of N.I.Act. Applicant's case is purely covered and governed by the aforesaid judgment. Learned trial Court has committed error in applying the provisions of Sec. 143A of N.I.Act with retrospective effect. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.