Hello,

No it will not be retrospective.

Court will be at a liberty to give ad-interim amount to the complainant.

Also the judges will have the statutory liability to dispose of the case u/s 138.

Regards

Firslty, there can be only civil law that may be retrospective, and that is also for the one who are pending in the same issue of law, not the one whcih has been decided.

Secondly, NI Act is a criminal procedure code, where it can’t be for the pending cases.

Thirdly, you need not to worry about it.

It is not retrospective.

The purpose of the this amendment is to safeguard the position of the complainant in the case as there is a huge amount of pendency in the courts because of easy appeals that can be filed, and a stay order can be sought for the proceedings.

If the payer/drawer pleads not guilty then court may order him to pay interim compensation not exceeding 20% of total value of the negotiable instrument.

The date of filing of case is taken into consideration. The new amendment will be applicable to the cases filed after it coming into effect.

1. The N.I.Act amendment does not create any ground for early or rhythmic redresal of cheque bounce cases.

2. New sections 143 & 148, provides for non-mandatory provisional interim compensation (at the Courts discretion) to the complainant, which in itself is highly insufficient and inefficient and hardly has any value in a commercial world. Surprisingly complainant has refund back interim compensation WITH INTEREST to the accused, if the accused wins the case.

It is only persuasive in nature and will provide much relief in cheque bouncing cases.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

1) The amendment introduces Section 143A which provides for power to order interim compensation. It states that the Court trying an offence under Section 138(dishonor of cheque on account of insufficient funds) may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. However, the amount of interim compensation shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque.

2) Power of Appellate Court to order Payment of Pending Appeal against Conviction- The Bill seeks to insert Section 148in the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine awarded by the trial Court.

The amendment act is not made retrospective.

Under the amended provision the complainant may be given an ad-interim compensation so that pending the cases the complainant doesn't suffer.

The court shall move according to laid procedure there is no such direction in amendment to finish the trial in expedite manner.

Sir in case the unnecessary adjournments are taken by the accused an objection can be taken can ask cost to be imposed on the accused.

Amendment has to be passed by both Houses of Parliament and receive president assent

Amendment would be prospective

138NI cases take 6 years to be disposed of in Bombay

Courts are overburdened and hence lengthy dates

i guess the amendment is not yet brought into force

if the amendment does come into force then ideally it should be given a restrospective effect otherwise there will be 2 classes of aggrieved persons created, one who gets no interim compensation at all till the trial is concluded and accused is convicted and another class where the complainant becomes entitled to interim compensation. Such a differentiation cannot be thought of by an legislation because it will be in violation of Article 14 of the constitution pertaining to right of equality and right to equal treatment before the law

As this amendment is passed there are some questions unanswered.

Is it retrospective??

It is prospective and not retrospective.

How does it help to expedite a 138 case???

It is an amendment to the provisions of law and not for expediting the process or prosecution of the case.

Judges need to be more proactive and not allow unnecessary delays

Nobody can do anything about this because the judges are no doubt very curious to dispose the cases as early as possible whereas the fact is the parties to case are not cooperating and various other factors contribute to the inordinate delay

My case was filed but the accused pleaded not guilty just on 6 th of july 2018 so that falls within the 60 days period

I am worried as are judges are we lenient towards accused the accused keeps getting adjournment on bases of request for clubbing of two 138 cases I have done as I represent a company which has 2 identities sole proprietorship and pvt ltd

You may have to be in touch with yor advocate and should pressurise him to put pressure on court on such unnecessary delays.