This High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay 20% interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Court held that the provision is mandatory, not discretionary.
The petition was dismissed with a direction that no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 12
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 562 of 2021
Order Reserved on : 22.06.2021
Order Delivered on : 30.06.2021
Rajesh Soni, S/o Shri P.R. Soni, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Opposite Harsh Tower, Devpuri, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Verma, S/o Late Shri J.P. Verma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Opposite Suraj Kirana Store, Nandi Chowk, Tikrapara, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Gwalare, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV Order
Page 2 of 12
cheque dated 26.11.2018 amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has deposited the cheque on 28.11.2018 in the account maintained by him in Central Bank of India, Branch- Chhattisgarh College, Raipur. The said cheque was dishonoured and returned due to insufficient fund on 14.12.2018, therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 has been committed by the petitioner.
Page 3 of 12
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and same is inconformity with the amended provisions of Section 143A of the Act, 1881. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.
“143A – Power to direct interim compensation- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant-
(2) The interim compensation under subsection (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque.
(3) The interim compensation shall be pad within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.
(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial years, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
(5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a find
Page 4 of 12
under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”
“18. A careful reading of the order passed by the Court below shows that the Court below has focussed more on the issue of the prospective / retrospective operation of the amendment. The Court has not given any reason as to why it is directing the accused persons to pay an interim compensation of 20% to the complainant. As held by this Court, the discretionary power that is vested with the trial Court in ordering for interim compensation must be supported by reasons and unfortunately in this case, it is not supported by reasons. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the respondent to read certain reasons into the order, cannot be done by this Court, since this Court is testing the application of mind of the Court below while passing the impugned order by exercising its discretion and this Court cannot attempt to supplement it with the reasons argued by the learned counsel for the respondent.”
1 AIR Online 2019 Mad 801
Page 5 of 12
“The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) was enacted to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques. The said Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of dishonour of cheques. However, the Central Government has been receiving several representations from the public including trading community relating to pendency of cheque dishonour cases. This is because of delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings. As a result of this, injustice is caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in court proceedings to realize the value of the cheque. Such delays compromise the sanctity of cheque transactions.
Page 6 of 12
payment upto 20% of the cheque amount during the pendency of the matter. The order under Section 143A of the Act, 1881 can be passed only in summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint, in any the case upon framing of charge.
Page 7 of 12
the complainant as well as the accused, therefore, from perusal of aims and object of amended Section 143A of the Act, 1881, it is quite clear that the word 'may' may be treated as 'shall' and it is not discretionary but of directory in nature. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining 'may' used 'shall' and have effect of directory in nature in case of Bachahan Devi & another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & another2 , which reads as under:-
“18. It is well-settled that the use of word “may” in a statutory provision would not by itself show that the provision is directory in nature. In some cases, the legislature may use the word 'may' as a matter of pure conventional courtesy and yet intend a mandatory force. In order, therefore, to interpret the legal import of the word “may”, the court has to consider various factors, namely, the object and the scheme of the Act, the context and the background against which the words have been used, the purpose and the advantages sought to be achieved by the use of this word, and the like. It is equally well-settled that where the word 'may' involves a discretion coupled with an obligation or where it confers a positive benefit to a general class of subjects in a utility Act, or where the court advances a remedy and suppresses the mischief, or where giving the words directory significance would defeat the very object of the Act, the word 'may' should be interpreted to convey a mandatory force. As a general rule, the word “may” is permissive and operative to confer discretion and especially so, where it is used in juxtaposition to the word “shall”, which ordinarily is imperative as it imposes a duty. Cases however, are not wanting where the words “may” “shall”, and “must” are used interchangeably. In order to find out whether these words are being used in a directory or in a mandatory sense, the intent of the legislature should be looked into along with the pertinent circumstances.
2 (2008) 12 SCC 372
Page 8 of 12
the use of the word `shall' or 'may' depends on conferment of power. Depending upon the context, 'may' does not always mean may. 'May' is a must for enabling compliance of provision but there are cases in which, for various reasons, as soon as a person who is within the statute is entrusted with the power, it becomes [his] duty to exercise [that power]. Where the language of statute creates a duty, the special remedy is prescribed for non-performance of the duty.”
may' and 'shall' is not decisive of its discretion or mandates. The use of the words “may” and shall' may help the courts in ascertaining the legislative intent without giving to either a controlling or a determinating effect. The courts have further to consider the subject matter, the purpose of the provisions, the object intended to be secured by the statute which is of prime importance, as also the actual words employed.”3 (2019) 11 SCC 341
Page 9 of 12
“8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Appellants that even considering the language used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, the appellate Court "may" order the Appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court and the word used is not "shall" and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court to direct the Appellant - Accused to deposit such sum and the appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Section 148 of the N.I. Act, though it is true that in amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the word used is "may", it is generally to be construed as a "rule" or "shall" and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned. Therefore amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the AppellantAccused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the AppellantAccused Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the Appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, but also Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonoured of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the
Page 10 of 12
dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions, the Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and also Section 138 of the N.I. Act.”
“19. It must be stated that prior to the insertion of Section 143-A in the Act there was no provision on the statute book whereunder even before the pronouncement of the guilt of an accused, or even before his conviction for the offence in question, he could be made to pay or deposit interim compensation. The imposition and consequential recovery of fine or compensation either through the modality of Section 421 of the Code or Section 357 of the code could also arise only after the person was found guilty of an offence. That was the status of law which was sought to be changed by the introduction of Section 143A in the Act. It now imposes a liability that even before the pronouncement of his guilt or order of conviction, the accused may, with the aid of State machinery for recovery of the money as arrears of land revenue, be forced to pay interim compensation. The person would, therefore, be subjected to a new disability or obligation. The situation is thus completely different from the one which arose for consideration in ESI Corpn. v. Dwarka Nath Bhargwa, (1997) 7 SCC 131 .
4 (2019) 19 SCC 469
Page 11 of 12
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.”
“8. Therefore, whenever the trial Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 143A(1) of the Act, it shall record reasons as to why it directs the accused person (drawer of the cheque) to pay the interim compensation to the complainant. The reasons may be varied. For instance, the accused person would have absconded for a longtime and thereby would have protracted the proceedings or the accused person would have intentionally evaded service for a long time and only after repeated attempts, appears before the Court, or the enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming materials which the accused person could not on the face of it deny or where the accused person accepts the debt or liability partly or where the accused person does not cross examine the witnesses and keeps on dragging with the proceedings by filing one petition after another or the accused person absonds and by virtue of a non-bailable warrant he is secured and brought before the Court after a long time or he files a recall non-bailable warrant petition after a long time and the Court while considering his petition for recalling the nonbailable warrant can invoke Section 143A(1) of the Act. This list is not exhaustive and it is more illustrative as to the various circumstances under which the trial Court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 143A(1) of the Act, by directing the accused person to pay the interim compensation of 20% to the complainant.
Page 12 of 12
Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Arun
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the grant of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is discretionary or mandatory.
Whether the lower courts committed an illegality or irregularity in directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation.
Whether this Court can quash the orders of the trial court and the Sessions Judge rejecting the revision petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.G.R. Enterprises & another Vs. P. AnbazhaganReferred¶35
L.G.R. Enterprises & another Vs. P. Anbazhagan
Bachahan Devi & another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & anotherExplained¶48
Bachahan Devi & another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & another
Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal & others Vs. Virender GandhiApplied¶54
Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal & others Vs. Virender Gandhi
G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj SuranaDistinguished¶60
G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana
L.G.R. Enterprises (Supras)Referred¶68
L.G.R. Enterprises (Supras)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Soni
Mukesh Verma
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court