JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.588/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kattappana. 2. The aforesaid case is one instituted upon the complaint filed against the petitioner by the first respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The complaint against the petitioner was filed on 08.08.2018 on the allegation that the cheques dated 10.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 issued by him in favour of the first respondent returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account and inspite of the statutory notice issued to the petitioner demanding payment of the amount of the cheques, he did not pay the amount. 4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. On 02.08.2019, the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offence. Then, the learned Magistrate ordered that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the amount of the cheques within a period of sixty days. The aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner/accused in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent. 6. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is presumably under Section 143A of the Act. 7. Section 143A was inserted in the Act with effect from 01.09.2018 by Amendment Act 20 of 2018. Section 143A(1) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. Section 143A(2) of the Act states that the interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque. 8. In Raja v. Tejraj Surana : AIR 2019 SC 3817 , the Supreme Court has held that the applicability of Section 143A of the Act is prospective in nature and in operation and confined to cases where the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after the introduction of that provision (Section 143A) in the statute book. 9. In Raja v. Tejraj Surana : AIR 2019 SC 3817 , the Supreme Court has held that the applicability of Section 143A of the Act is prospective in nature and in operation and confined to cases where the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after the introduction of that provision (Section 143A) in the statute book. 9. In the instant case, the offence under Section 138 of the Act was allegedly committed by the petitioner and the complaint against him was filed by the first respondent much before the date 01.09.2018. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have invoked the provisions under Section 143A of the Act in the instant case and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of the cheques. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of the cheques, is set aside. If the petitioner has already remitted or deposited the amount, it shall be refunded to him. 11. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest.