Mahaveer Jain vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8058 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8058 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahaveer Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2021

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5108/2019

Mahaveer Jain S/o Shri Heera Lal Jain, Aged About 53 Years, B/c Jain, R/o 109 Roopnagar, 22Nd Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Babulal S/o Sh. Utmaram, B/c Mali, R/o Maliyon Ka Bas, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Dalpat Singh.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
                               Mr. Anil Gupta on behalf of
                               Mr. Shree Kant Verma.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
                    Judgment / Order

23/03/2021

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.09.2019 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Case No.345/2014,

whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application flied by

the respondent No.2 under Section 143A NI Act and directed the

petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- to the respondent No.2

as interim compensation in accordance with Section 143A of the

NI Act within two months from the date of order. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has

committed grave error in directing the petitioner to pay interim

compensation to the respondent No.2 in view of the provisions of

Section 143A of NI Act. Counsel submits that provisions of Section

143A of the Act were inserted in the statute book on 01.09.2018

whereas the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5108/2019]

the respondent No.2 on 05.07.2013, therefore the aforesaid

provisions would be applied prospectively, hence the aforesaid

amendment is not applicable in the present case and on this

ground the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside.

To buttress his contention, counsel has relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj

Surana, Criminal Appeal No.1160/2019, decided on 30.07.2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the submissions made

by the counsel for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of GJ Raja

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue involved

in the present case in detail and in para 24 has held as under :

In the ultimate analysis, we hold Section 143A to be prospective in operation and that the provisions of said Section 143A 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 143A 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.

In the present case the complaint under Section 138 of NI

Act was filed on 13.06.2013, whereas, provisions of Section 143A

of the Act were inserted in the statute book w.e.f. 01.09.2018.

Thus in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of GJ Raja (Supra), this Court is of the

opinion that the learned trial court has committed error in

awarding interim maintenance in favour of the complainant as the

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5108/2019]

provisions of Section 143A of the Act are to be applied

prospectively and not retrospectively. In view of above, the

criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated

06.09.2019 passed by the trial court directing the petitioner to