બોમ્બે હાઈકોર્ટ :- ૧૪૩ એ – નેગા ના કેસ માં વચગાળાની વળતર ની રકમ મંજૂર કરવાના હુકમ માં કારણો લખવા જરૂરી નથી. કાયદા માં સ્પષ્ટ જોગવાઈ હોય ત્યાં કારણો લખવાની જરૂર નથી.

Case Title: Guljama Shah Jahir Shah v. Shri Sadguru Kaka Stone Crusher

Bench: Justice Anil L. Pansare

Case No.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 83/2023 CounselDownload 

The main contention against the impugned order is that the trial Court has not assigned any reason while granting interim compensation. Bhavin Suchak, counsel for the accused submitted that the trial Court ought to have given reasons to indicate that 20% interim compensation is justified. 

The Bombay High Court recently declared that magistrates are not obligated to provide explanations for granting compensation to complainants in cases involving bounced checks.

Justice Anil L. Pansare’s panel was handling a case where they were reviewing a petition that challenged a decision made by a Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate had approved an application submitted by the respondent under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

In this particular case, R.D. Dhande, who represented the petitioner, cited the precedent of Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar vs. Laxmikant Govind Joshi. Dhande argued that when determining an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court must provide justification for granting interim compensation, which can range up to 20% of the value of the bounced cheque.

The primary argument against the challenged order is that the trial court did not provide any rationale for awarding interim compensation.

Bhavin Suchak, the counsel representing the accused, argued that the trial court should have provided justifications to demonstrate the appropriateness of awarding 20% interim compensation. 

The High Court expressed the opinion that one of the key objectives behind the introduction of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act through the amendment Act of 2018 (Act 20 of 2018) was to combat the delaying tactics employed by dishonest check issuers. These tactics often involved easily filing appeals and obtaining stays on legal proceedings. The court observed that beneficiaries of dishonored checks had to invest significant time and resources in legal proceedings to recover the check amount. Therefore, the amendment aimed to address the problem of prolonged resolution in check dishonor cases. Its purpose was to offer relief to payees of dishonored checks and discourage frivolous and unnecessary litigation, ultimately saving both time and money.

The bench went on to explain that to truly uphold the spirit of this amendment, once the conditions outlined in clauses (a) to (d) are met, they should suffice as reasons for awarding interim compensation. In such circumstances, the Magistrate would be entirely justified in granting 20% interim compensation. Requiring the Magistrate to provide additional reasons could potentially undermine the purpose of the amendment. This is because every order made under Section 143A could then face challenges based on the absence of additional reasons, and if additional reasons were given, they could be subject to scrutiny as being insufficient, thus potentially leading to an influx of legal disputes.

The High Court emphasized that interim compensation is provided during a phase of the legal proceedings when the accused has entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Consequently, even if all the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (d) have been met, failing to grant interim compensation at the rate of 20% of the check amount would go against the purpose of Section 143A. The court clarified that it’s only in cases where there is uncertainty or doubt regarding the fulfillment of any requirement outlined in clauses (a) to (d) that the Magistrate might consider reducing the interim compensation below 20% of the check amount or even not granting it at all.

Considering the points discussed above, the bench has dismissed the petition.