Bombay High Court
Sunil Bhavrilal Duggad vs Dr Jinendra Meghrajji Bhandari on 21 February, 2023
Author: G.A. Sanap
Bench: G.A. Sanap
J-apl845.19.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.845 OF 2019
Sunil Bhavrilal Duggad,
Age about 50 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Ganesh Traders,
Near Bazar Chowk, Bela,
Tal. Umred, Distt. Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
Dr. Jinendra Meghrajji Bhandari,
Age about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
C/o. Ramdeobaba Apang Mukh Badhir Vidyalaya,
Yavatmal Road, Chikhalgaon,
Tal. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. J.H. Kothari, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Madhuri F. Tupkar, Advocate for Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 21.2.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2023 10:39:58 ::: J-apl845.19.odt 2/4
3. In this application made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenge is to the order dated 3 rd June, 2019 passed below Exh.-21 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani, Taluka Wani, District Yavatmal. The application at Exh.-21 was made by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as, "the complainant") under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "NI Act") seeking direction to the applicant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") to deposit 20% of the amount of cheque.
4. The accused filed reply to the application and opposed the said application. The main contention of the accused in the reply was that the amended provisions of Section 143A of the NI Act which came into effect on 1st September, 2018 have no retrospective operation and therefore, could not be made applicable to the complaint which was filed on 22.1.2018.
5. The learned Magistrate relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi, reported at (2019) 11 SCC 341, held that the amended provision has retrospective operation and based on the same, allowed the application. It is the primary submission of the learned Advocate for the accused that the decision ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2023 10:39:58 ::: J-apl845.19.odt 3/4 in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) has been distinguished in the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana, reported at 2019 SCC OnLine SC 989, wherein it is held that Section 143A has a prospective operation. For the purpose of convenience, it would be apposite to reproduce para 25 of the decision which reads thus :
"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."
6. It is to be noted that in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) the applicability of the provisions of Section 148, introduced with effect from 1.9.2018, was considered for its application to the appeals filed against the order of conviction in the complaint filed prior to coming into force of the said Act. In the case of G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana (supra) the issue involved was with regard to the applicability of Section 143A to the pending complaints. In this case the complaint was filed before Magistrate on 22.1.2018. Therefore, in ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2023 10:39:58 ::: J-apl845.19.odt 4/4 view of the law laid down in the case of G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana (supra), the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly set aside.
7. The application is allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 3.6.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani, below Exh.-21 in S.C.C. No.151/2018 is set aside.
9. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
10. The application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(G.A. Sanap, J.) okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2023 10:39:58 :::