9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Validity of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act for cheques issued before the introduction of the section. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a financial enterprise, issued two cheques to the respondent which were dishonoured by the bank. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner sought to quash the complaint on grounds of jurisdiction and timing of the offence. 2. The cheques were issued in December 1988 and dishonoured in April 1989, with a demand notice issued in May 1989. The petitioner argued that since Section 138 came into force in April 1989, the prosecution for pre-April 1989 cheques was not maintainable. The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction and the timing of the offence under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. 3. The court clarified that under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court where the consequences of the offence occur has jurisdiction. The petitioner's failure to appear did not waive the right to challenge jurisdiction. However, the court reserved its final decision on jurisdiction for the trial court. 4. Regarding the timing of the offence, the court analyzed the provisions of Section 138 and its proviso. It emphasized that the offence is the failure to make payment within 15 days of receiving a notice, not the act of drawing the cheque. The court interpreted the legislative intent behind the wording of the section to conclude that the law was in force at the time of the offence, rejecting the petitioner's argument. 5. The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case, upholding the validity of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act for the cheques issued before the introduction of the section. The judgment clarified the legal principles surrounding the offence under Section 138 and the jurisdiction of the court to try such cases.
|
