Madras High Court
M.Sivasamy vs M/S.Valampuri Investments on 5 January, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.882, 897, 900, 902, 904, 906 & 909 of 2020
(In Crl.O.P(MD)No.1843 of 2020)
M.Sivasamy ... Petitioner/
Accused
Vs.
M/s.Valampuri Investments,
Represented by its Working Partner,
R.Kathiresan. ... Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.12217 of 2018 in
C.C.No.567 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track
Court), Karur.
(In All Cases)
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are accused in complaints filed under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending trial, the trial Court directed
the petitioners to deposit 10% of the cheque amount by virtue of power
conferred under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
petitioners / accused, who are directed to deposit the interim
compensation, challenge the said orders.
2. Though notice was served to the respondent, the respondent has
not chosen to enter appearance before this Court.
3. The relevant dates pertaining to the complaints are found in the
below mentioned chart:
S. Case No. Petitioner Respondent C.C.No. Date of Date of Date of Cause of
Dishonour Notice Receipt action
No.
1. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Valampuri 567/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1843 of Investments
2. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Nagamani 565/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1858 of Leasings
3. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Kannapiran Auto 564/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1862 of Finance
4. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Nagamani 563/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1864 of Investment
5. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Valampuri Auto 568/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1866 of Finance
6. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Nagamani Auto 566/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1867 of Finance
7. Crl.O.P(MD) M.Sivasamy Kariyan Leasings 562/2018 12.06.2018 10.07.2018 14.07.2018 29.07.2018
No.1869 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
4. The common question involved in all these petitions is whether
the learned Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct the accused to pay
interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments
Act for offences that were committed prior to the introduction of said
Section in the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. A reading of the complaints in all these petitions would show
that the statutory notice was issued on 10.07.2018, which was received
by the petitioners on 14.07.2018. The cause of action for initiating the
complaints arose on 29.07.2018.
6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that
since the alleged offences have been committed on 29.07.2018, the
provisions of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which
was introduced on 01.09.2018 cannot be made applicable.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana reported in 2019
(19) SCC page 469 in support of the submission. The Hon'ble Apex
Court had held in the said decision, that the applicability of Section 143A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
has to be prospective in nature and confined to cases where offences
were committed after the introduction of Section 143A. The relevant
portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.21
to 23 is extracted as follows:
"21. In our view, the applicability of Section 143-A of
the Act must, therefore, be held to be prospective in nature
and confined to cases where offences were committed after
the introduction of Section 143-A, in order to force an
accused to pay such interim compensation.
22. We must, however, advert to a decision of this
Court in Surinder Singh Deswal Vs. Virender Gandhi where
Section 148 of the Act which was also introduced by the
same Amendment Act 20 of 2018 from 01.09.2018 was held
by this Court to be retrospective in operation. As against
Section 143-A of the Act which applies at the trial stage that
is even before the pronouncement of guilt or order of
conviction, Section 148 of the Act applies at the appellant
stage where the accused is already found guilty of the
offence under Section 138 of the Act. It may be stated that
there is no provision in Section 148 of the Act which is
similar to sub-Section (5) of Section 143-A of the Act.
However, as a matter of fact, no such provision akin to sub-
section (5) of Section 143-A was required as Sections 421
and 357 of the Code, which apply post-conviction, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
adequate to take care of such requirements. In that sense
said Section 148 depends upon the existing machinery and
principles already in existence and does not create any fresh
disability of the nature similar to that created by Section
143-A of the Act. Therefore, the decision of this Court in
Surinder Singh Deswal stands on a different footing.
23. In the ultimate analysis, we hold Section 143-A to
be prospective in operation and that the provisions of said
Section 143-A can be applied or invoked only in cases where
the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after
the introduction of said Section 143-A in the statute book.
Consequently, the orders passed by the trial Court as well as
the High Court are required to be set aside. The money
deposited by the appellant, pursuant to the interim direction
passed by this Court, shall be returned to the appellant
along with interest accrued thereon within two weeks from
the date of this order."
8. We find from the impugned order that the learned Judicial
Magistrate has not considered this issue and has directed the petitioners
to pay the interim compensation which in our view is not in accordance
with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
9. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the orders impugned in the above petitions are
liable to be set aside and hence, set aside. All these Criminal Original
Petitions stand allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions stand closed.
05.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Btr
To
1.Working Partner,
M/s.Valampuri Investments,
TAM Complex,
NRMP Street,
Covai Road,
Karur-2.
2.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Karur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Btr
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1843, 1858, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867 & 1869 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.882, 897, 900, 902, 904, 906 & 909 of 2020
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
