Right To Cross Examination Cannot Be Denied To Accused For Failure To Deposit Interim Compensation U/Sec 143A NI Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant cannot be denied to an accused for his failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act.

"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", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.

In this case (cheque bounce complaint), an order was passed by the Trial Court directing the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in terms of Section 143A of the Act within 60 days. Since the accused did not deposit the said amount even after extended period, an application made on behalf of the accused under Section 145(2) of the Act seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant was dismissed. Subsequently he was found guilty under Section 138 NI Act. The appellate court and later the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.

Before the Apex Court, it was contended that in case the order of interim compensation as directed in terms of Section 143A of the Act is not complied with, the amount can be recovered in terms of Sub-Section 5 of said Section 143A as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Code. But it would not be within the competence of the court to deprive an accused of his right to cross-examine a witness; the denial of such right resulted in great prejudice to the accused, it was contended.

The court, referring to Section 143 A noticed as follows:

"After empowering the court to pass an order directing the accused to pay interim compensation under Sub-Section 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".

The court noted that the remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the court is thus provided for by the Legislature. 

"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", the bench observed.

The court therefore allowed the appeal and restored the complaint to the file of the Trial Court and directed it to permit the accused to cross-examine the complainant and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion. 

Case details

Noor Mohammed vs Khurram Pasha | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652 | SLP (Crl) 2872 of 2022 | 2 August 2022 | Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia 

Headnotes 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ; Section 143A - Failure of accused to pay interim compensation - The amount can be recovered as if it were a fine -  The provision nowhere contemplates that an accused who ad 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. (Para 12-14)

Interpretation of Statutes-  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)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment