9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 677 - SC - Companies LawWhether sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action for taking cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act? Held that - Banking institution holding several cheques signed by the same borrower cannot only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four different places. This only causes grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of an accused vis- -vis the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. We, however, while exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that Complaint Case No.1549 pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, be transferred to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh who shall assign the same to a court of competent jurisdiction. The transferee court shall fix a specific date of hearing and shall not grant any adjournment on the date on which the complainant and its witnesses are present. The transferee court is furthermore directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of the case on assignment by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court: The primary issue in this case was whether the Additional Sessions Judge in New Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellants and respondents were involved in a business transaction where the cheque in question was issued, presented, and dishonoured in Chandigarh. The complainant issued a notice demanding payment from New Delhi, and upon non-payment, filed a complaint in Delhi. The court examined the sequence of events and the relevant legal provisions. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act outlines the offence of dishonour of a cheque and the conditions under which a complaint can be filed. The court noted that the offence under Section 138 is completed with a series of acts, including drawing the cheque, presenting it, dishonouring it, giving notice, and failing to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice. The court referred to the precedent set in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, which stated that if the acts constituting the offence occur in different localities, any of the courts in those localities can have jurisdiction. However, the court emphasized that for jurisdiction to be established, the receipt of the notice by the accused is crucial, as it triggers the cause of action for filing the complaint. The court also considered the decision in M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. M/s Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd., which highlighted that the communication of the notice is essential for the cause of action to arise. The court concluded that merely sending a notice from Delhi does not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi court if the cheque was issued, presented, and dishonoured in Chandigarh, and the notice was received in Chandigarh. The court further elaborated on the principles of jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that an offence should be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The exceptions under Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, which allow for jurisdiction in cases where the offence is committed in multiple localities, were also discussed. The court determined that the entire cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and therefore, the Delhi court did not have jurisdiction. The court also addressed the argument that the principle of "debtor must seek the creditor" should apply, stating that such a principle is not applicable in criminal cases, where jurisdiction is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code. In conclusion, the court held that the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to transfer the case to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, directing the transferee court to dispose of the matter expeditiously within six months. Separate Judgments: The judgment was delivered collectively without separate judgments from the judges. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the case was transferred to the appropriate court in Chandigarh. The court emphasized the importance of the location where the cause of action arises in determining jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
