G. J. Raja(appellant) issued two cheques to Tejraj Surana, both dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lodged by Tejraj on 04.11.2016.
While litigation is pending, Section 143A: allowing interim compensation, was inserted into the Act from 01.09.2018.
The Trial Court ordered the appellant to pay 20% of the cheque amount to the respondent as interim compensation, as per Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On appeal, the High Court upheld the order but reduced the percentage to 15% of the cheque amount.
Hence, the present appeal before SC.
ISSUE-
Whether Section 143A, allowing for interim compensation before the accused's guilt is determined, applies retrospectively?
RULE-
Legislation is presumed not to have a retrospective operation unless expressly stated. Hence, section S,143A applies prospectively.
HELD-
In Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1, the general principle is that the legislation is presumed not to have a retrospective operation unless a contrary intention appears. It underscores the idea that laws passed today should govern current activities and should not apply to events of the past. This principle, known as "lex prospicit non respicit" (law looks forward not backward), ensures that individuals can arrange their affairs based on existing laws without fear of retroactive changes.
Under Section 143A (5) provides fine can be imposed as s. 421 IPC, it was clarified that it only provides a resort towards non-compliance of an interim grant provided by the court u/s 143A.
In "Anil Kumar Goel v. Kishan Chand Kaura," it was observed that there was no intention for the amendment to Section 142(b) to operate retrospectively. The complaint being filed before the amendment, the court held the amendment not retrospective in nature.
In the case of Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. vs. Virender Gandhi (2019) 8 SCALE 445, the court held that Section 148 of the Act, introduced by Amendment Act 20 of 2018, is retrospective.
The court noted that, unlike Section 143A, which applies at the trial stage, Section 148 applies at the appellate stage after the accused is found guilty under Section 138 of the Act.
That Section 148 relies on existing machinery and principles and does not create new disabilities like Section 143A. Therefore, the decision in Surinder Singh Deswal differs in its application. Section 143A of the Act is prospective, applying only to offenses committed after its introduction.
Orders by the Trial Court and High Court set aside, and the deposited money returned to the Appellant.