Rohit B. Deo, J
1. Heard Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.
2. The non-applicant was served with the notice issued by this Court sometime in February, 2020. However, since the non-applicant did not appear,
this Court directed issuance of fresh notice. Despite the service of fresh notice, the non-applicant has not appeared.
3. In any event, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, (2019) 19 SCC 469.
4. The applicant is the accused in Summary Criminal Case 1646/2017 instituted by the non-applicant under Section 143-A of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (“Act†for short).
5. Vide order dated 04-7-2019, the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 143-A of the Act and directed the applicant-accused to
pay interim compensation.
6. Section 143-A of the Act is interpreted by the Supreme Court as being prospective in nature and confined to cases where the offences were
committed after the introduction of Section 143-A. The said provision was inserted in the Act with effect from 01-9-2018.
7. Indubitably, the said provision shall not apply since the alleged offence is committed prior to its introduction in the statute.
8. The impugned order is unsustainable.
9. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i), which reads thus :
“(i) Quash and set aside order below Exhibit 21 dated 04-7-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6 in Summary Criminal
Case No.1646/2017 (Sunil vs. Manohar) and further be pleased to reject an application Exhibit 21.â€
