RAKESH RANJAN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER (2024) 3 S.C.R.438; 2024 INSC 205; (2024) 4 SCC 419.
AUTHOR – KANAK S. UPADHYAY, STUDENT AT M.K.E.S COLLEGE OF LAW
BEST CITATION – KANAK S. UPADHYAY, RAKESH RANJAN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER (2024) 3 S.C.R.438; 2024 INSC 205; (2024) 4 SCC 419., INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (2) OF 2025, PG. 12-15, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
This article is published in the collaborated special issue of M.K.E.S. College of Law and the Institute of Legal Education (ILE), titled “Current Trends in Indian Legal Frameworks: A Special Edition” (ISBN: 978-81-968842-8-4).
INTRODUCTION
This case deals with the interpretation of Section 143A (1) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(N.I.Act), which is a significant provision that allows a Court to order interim compensation in cheque dishonor cases.[1] Earlier, there was no provision as to payment of compensation under the N.I.Act. Section 143A was inserted in the N.I.Act through Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.[2]Section 143A is prospective in nature and confined to cases where the offences were committed after the introduction of Section 143A in the statute books.[3] The central issue of this case is whether this provision is directory or mandatory. If it is held directory, what are the factors to be considered for exercising such powers. The Supreme Court ruled that the power to order interim compensation under Section 143A is discretionary, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the word “may” cannot be construed as “shall,” as such interpretation will be unjust and contrary to the well-settled concept of fairness and justice and it can manifest arbitrariness.
[1] Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
[2] Inserted by the Negotiable Instrument Act (Amendment)Act, 2018(Act No. 20 of 2018),Sec 2.
[3] G.J.Raja v. Tejraj Surana A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 2956