Summary
In a cheque-dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court ordered the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A. When he did not pay, it refused him leave to cross-examine the complainant and then convicted him. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that Section 143A(5) itself provides the remedy for non-payment: the amount may be recovered as if it were a fine under Section 421 CrPC. Where a statute lays down how a power is to be exercised, other ways are excluded by necessary implication. Denying the right of cross-examination was beyond the court's power. All three decisions were set aside and the complaint was restored for trial after cross-examination. Rs.1,40,000 from the amount deposited was to be kept as interim compensation.
Issues
- Whether a court trying a Section 138 complaint can deny the accused the right to cross-examine the complainant because he failed to deposit interim compensation ordered under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 143A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Sub-sections (1) to (6) were read together. Sub-section (5) makes unpaid interim compensation recoverable as a fine; the section attaches no other disability, such as loss of the right to cross-examine, to non-payment. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 145(2), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The accused's application under this provision to cross-examine the complainant had been dismissed as not maintainable for want of the deposit; that refusal was held illegal. (¶¶ 5, 15)
- Section 421, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 143A(5) provides that interim compensation is to be recovered as if it were a fine under this section. This is the method the legislature prescribed for enforcing payment. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13)
Held
- The expression 'interim compensation payable under this Section' in Section 143A(5) covers the compensation directed under sub-section (1). The legislature has therefore provided both the remedy for non-payment and the way it is to be recovered. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Where a statute confers a power and lays down the manner of its exercise, it must be exercised in that manner and other methods are forbidden by necessary implication (Taylor v. Taylor, Nazir Ahmad, Singhara Singh, J.N. Ganatra and Anjum M.H. Ghaswala applied). (¶ 13)
- Section 143A nowhere contemplates any other disability on an accused who fails to deposit interim compensation. An order closing his right to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses is beyond the court's power. Because the right was denied, the decisions below suffered from an inherent illegality. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The complaint was restored and the accused was to be allowed to cross-examine the complainant. Of the Rs.3,50,000 deposited in the Supreme Court, Rs.1,40,000 (20% of the cheque amount) was sent to the trial court as interim compensation and the rest returned to the accused. The Court expressed no view on the merits. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. The conviction and its affirmance by the appellate court and the High Court were set aside. Complaint Case No. 244 of 2019 was restored to the trial court for trial after cross-examination of the complainant, with Rs.1,40,000 kept in deposit as interim compensation.