Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.143A – Mandate of – Failure to deposit interim compensation in terms of s.143A and its effect, if any, on the right of accused to cross-examine witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant – Cheque of Rs.7,00,000/drawn by appellant in favour of Respondent, dishonoured – Complaint case by Respondent u/s.138 – Trial court directed appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in terms of s.143(A) – No such deposit made by appellant – Application on behalf of appellant u/s.145(2) seeking permission to cross-examine respondent dismissed by trial court as not maintainable, in view of appellant’s failure to deposit the interim compensation as directed – Right of appellant to cross-examine the respondent, if rightly closed by the courts below – Held: The concerned provision, namely, s.143A, nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant – Any such order foreclosing the right would not be within the powers conferred upon the court – Since the right to cross-examine the respondent was denied to the appellant, complaint case restored to trial court – Trial Court to permit appellant to cross-examine respondent and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion – Also, 20% of the cheque amount, namely Rs.1,40,000/-, to be deposited by appellant as interim compensation. Interpretation of Statutes – Remedy provided for by the Legislature – Method and modalities also clearly delineated – Rule of construction – Held: Powers under a statute are to be exercised in the manner prescribed in the statute – If a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. After empowering the court to pass an order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under SubSection 1 of Section 143A, Sub-Section 2 then mandates that such interim compensation should not exceed 20 per cent of the amount of the cheque. The period within which the interim compensation must be paid is stipulated in Sub-Section 3, while Sub-Section 4 deals with situations where the drawer of the cheque is acquitted. Said Sub-Section 4 contemplates repayment of interim compensation along with interest as stipulated. Sub-Section 5 of said Section 143A then states “the interim compensation payable under this Section can be recovered as if it were a fine”. The expression interim compensation is one which is “payable under this Section” and would thus take within its sweep the interim compensation directed to be paid under Sub-Section 1 of said Section 143A. [Para 12][866-D-F]
1.2. The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the court is thus provided for by the Legislature. The method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is clearly delineated by the Legislature. It is well known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. [Para 13][866-G]
1.3. The concerned provision nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Any such order foreclosing the right would not be within the powers conferred upon the court and would, as a matter of fact, go well beyond the permissible exercise of power. [Para 14][869-C-D]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358 : [1964] 4 SCR 485; J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality (1996) 9 SCC 495 : [1996]
3 Suppl. SCR 742 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 303 – relied on.
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 Privy Council
253 (2) – referred to.
2. Since the right to cross-examine the respondent was denied to the Appellant, the decisions rendered by the courts below suffer from an inherent infirmity and illegality. Therefore, the decisions of all three courts are set aside with further direction that Complaint Case shall stand restored to the file of the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to permit the Appellant to cross-examine the Respondent and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion. It is also directed that 20% of the cheque amount namely Rs.1,40,000/- must be deposited by the Appellant as interim compensation. [Paras 15, 16][869-D-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.