NOOR MOHAMMED versus KHURRAM PASHA

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 02-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
NOOR MOHAMMED
v.
KHURRAM PASHA
AUGUST 02, 2022
(Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2022)
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.143A – Mandate of –
Failure to deposit interim compensation in terms of s.143A and its
effect, if any, on the right of accused to cross-examine witnesses
examined on behalf of the complainant – Cheque of Rs.7,00,000/-
drawn by appellant in favour of Respondent, dishonoured –
Complaint case by Respondent u/s.138 – Trial court directed
appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim
compensation in terms of s.143(A) – No such deposit made by
appellant – Application on behalf of appellant u/s.145(2) seeking
permission to cross-examine respondent dismissed by trial court as
not maintainable, in view of appellant’s failure to deposit the interim
compensation as directed – Right of appellant to cross-examine the
respondent, if rightly closed by the courts below – Held: The
concerned provision, namely, s.143A, 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 – Since the right to cross-examine the
respondent was denied to the appellant, complaint case restored to
trial court – Trial Court to permit appellant to cross-examine
respondent and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion –
Also, 20% of the cheque amount, namely Rs.1,40,000/-, to be
deposited by appellant as interim compensation.
Interpretation of Statutes – Remedy provided for by the
Legislature – Method and modalities also clearly delineated – Rule
of construction – Held: Powers under a statute are to be exercised
in the manner prescribed in the statute – If a statute prescribes a
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 860
860
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication,
the other methods of performance are not acceptable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. 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. [Para 12][866-D-F]
1.2. The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as
directed by the court is thus provided for by the Legislature.
The method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is
clearly delineated by the Legislature. It is well known principle
that 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][866-G]
1.3. 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. [Para
14][869-C-D]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others
AIR 1964 SC 358 : [1964] 4 SCR 485; J.N. Ganatra
v. Morvi Municipality (1996) 9 SCC 495 : [1996]
NOOR MOHAMMED v. KHURRAM PASHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
3 Suppl. SCR 742 and Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 :
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 303 – relied on.
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 Privy Council
253 (2) – referred to.
2. Since the right to cross-examine the respondent was
denied to the Appellant, the decisions render

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.