Interim compensation orders under Section 143A of the NI Act are interlocutory and not subject to revision.

The Petitioner filed a revision petition challenging an order dated 24.05.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 8464(C) of 2023.

The trial court had directed the Petitioner to pay 20% of the dishonoured cheque amount (₹3,00,000) as interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The Petitioner contended the cheque was suspicious due to a discrepancy between the amount in words (fifteen lakhs) and figures (one lakh fifty thousand).

During the pendency of this revision, the Petitioner complied with the trial court's order and paid the interior compensation.

1. Whether an order for interim compensation passed under Section 143A of the NI Act is an interlocutory order against which a revision petition is not maintainable.

2. Whether the impugned order directing 20% payment was sustainable given the alleged discrepancies in the cheque.

The Court primarily applied Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which empowers a trial court to order the drawer of a cheque to pay interim compensation (not exceeding 20%) to the complainant if the drawer pleads not guilty.

This provision includes a mandatory restitution clause requiring the complainant to repay the amount with interest if the drawer is subsequently acquitted.

The Court relied on the principle that revision petitions are barred against interlocutory orders which do not attain finality.

The Court observed that the grant of interim compensation under Section 143A is a matter of judicial discretion once the accused pleads not guilty or charges are framed.

The Court reasoned that since Section 143A(4) provides for the refund of the amount with interest upon acquittal, the nature of such an order is "interlocutory" as it does not finally decide the rights of the parties or terminate the proceedings.

Consequently, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a revision petition is not maintainable against such an interlocutory order.

The Court further noted that the Petitioner had already complied with the order by making the payment, and the trial was at its final stage, rendering the challenge largely infructuous.

Since the Petitioner had already deposited the amount and the matter was at an advanced stage of trial, the Court declined to interfere with the lower court's order. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly.