9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C regarding jurisdiction of court for trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary: The petition challenges a magistrate's order directing the return of a complaint under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C. The complainant invoked the court's jurisdiction in Bangalore based on the cheque presentation and notice issuance in Bangalore. The petitioner argues that the complaint can be instituted where any act related to the offense occurs, citing Supreme Court judgments and Cr.P.C. provisions. The trial procedure under Section 143 of the N.I. Act allows for summary trials by designated magistrates. The completion of an offense under Section 138 involves multiple acts, including drawing the cheque, presenting it, notice issuance, and non-payment by the drawer. The petitioner contends that since the cheque was presented and notice issued in Bangalore, the court there has jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court precedent clarifies that the drawee bank, not the collecting bank, determines jurisdiction under Section 138. The court emphasizes the importance of service of notice for completing the offense and discourages multiple filings based on different locations of cheque presentation and notice service. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment must be followed. The petitioner's reliance on local judgments is dismissed, as the Supreme Court's interpretation prevails. A Madras High Court decision specifies the jurisdictions for trying Section 138 offenses based on cheque-related locations. In conclusion, the court finds no grounds to interfere with the magistrate's order and dismisses the petition challenging the jurisdiction for trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
|
