2021 (12) TMI 897 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - insufficiency of funds - complaint filed having no jurisdiction to try the case as contended by the revisional petitioner - revisional jurisdiction with regard to legality and correctness of the judgment of respective courts. Whether the Court in which the complaint is filed is having no jurisdiction to try the case as contended by the revisional petitioner? - HELD THAT - The proviso of section 142(2) is very clear that offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated and also explanation is clear that where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. When such amendment was brought in 2015 and inserted section 142(2) of the NI Act, the very contention of the petitioner that the Bijapur Court is not having jurisdiction to try the complaint filed for the offence under section 138 of NI Act, cannot be accepted. P.W.1 also categorically given admission that cheque was presented at Bijapur Axis Bank and also endorsement was given by the bank of the petitioner in respect of Axis Bank in terms of Ex. P.2. It is suggested that he has falsely deposed that cheque is presented at Axis Bank and the same was categorically denied. Hence, having taken note of all these materials available on record, the very contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted - answered in negative. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner herein and it requires revisional jurisdiction with regard to legality and correctness of the judgment of respective courts? - HELD THAT - Regarding exercising of revisional power by the Court is concerned, the same is also limited, the Court has to exercise revisional power only if the judgment of conviction and sentence which is affirmed by the appellate Court is not in conformity with the legality and correctness of the judgment and both the orders suffer from illegality and correctness of the order, only then the Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction - once signed cheque is delivered, the contention of the accused cannot be accepted and he has to rebut the case of the complainant. In the case on hand, the accused has not rebutted the evidence of complainant by leading any defence evidence. No doubt, the accused cross examined the witness P.W.1 to rebut his evidence by way of cross-examination of P.W.1 and the same is also not done with regard to transaction is concerned and the counsel mainly has concentrated with regard to jurisdiction while cross-examining P.W.1. - there are no reason to exercise revisional jurisdiction and hence, there are no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
2. Legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence.
3. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The petitioner contended that both the trial and appellate courts at Bijapur lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case, as the main loan transaction and the cheque issuance occurred in Bagalkot. The petitioner argued that the place of issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the cheque was presented for encashment is not relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction. The complainant countered that all transactions, including the loan application, loan disbursement, and correspondence, took place at Bijapur, and the cheque was delivered and presented at Bijapur. The court examined the documents (Exs. P.1 to P.10) and found that the loan was availed from Bijapur, and all relevant transactions occurred there. The court referred to the amended provisions of the NI Act, specifically Sections 142 and 142A, which clarified that the court at the place where the cheque is delivered for collection has territorial jurisdiction. The court also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh, which supported the view that the court at Bijapur had jurisdiction. Hence, the court concluded that Bijapur court had the proper jurisdiction to try the case.

2. Legality and Correctness of the Conviction and Sentence:
The petitioner argued that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting and sentencing her, as the cheque in question was materially altered without her consent, and the contents of the cheque were filled by the respondent. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any defense evidence to rebut the complainant's case. The court emphasized that once a signed cheque is delivered, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption of liability. The court found that the petitioner failed to do so and that the evidence presented by the complainant, including the documents and witness testimony, substantiated the claim of a legally enforceable debt. The court, therefore, upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no illegality or error in the judgments of the lower courts.

3. Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by the High Court:
The court stated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only be exercised if the judgment of conviction and sentence is not in conformity with the law or suffers from illegality. The court found that the judgments of the trial and appellate courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were legally sound. The court noted that the petitioner primarily focused on the issue of jurisdiction during the trial and failed to rebut the evidence regarding the loan transaction and the cheque issuance. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the revision petition.

Order:
The revision petition is dismissed.