9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion regarding the offence u/s138. whether the sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action in taking cognizance under the N.I. Act – Held that:- The place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured has jurisdiction to try the complaint - issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice - Section 178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and Section 179 of the Code has stretched it to still a wider horizon – appeal decided against the appellant. - Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9434 of 2011) - - - Dated:- 1-7-2013 - P. Sathasivam And Jagdish Singh Khehar,JJ. JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam,J. 1) Leave granted. 2) The question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the N.I.Act ) or would it be only the Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the drawee bank or the bank on which the cheque is drawn? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wahati under Sections 379, 381,411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) against the respondent. On 05.03.2010, the respondent filed a complaint being C.R. No. 9 of 2010 before the Court of J.M.I.C., Bhiwani under Section 190 of the Code for taking cognizance of the offence committed by the appellant under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act. f) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, by order dated 15.06.2010, in C.R. No. 340 of 2010, issued bailable warrants against the respondent. Thereafter, on 06.08.2010, the respondent filed an application for recall of the bailable warrants issued against him. Ultimately, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide order dated 05.03.2011, accepted the application with the observation that the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction and the complaint was returned for presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction. g) Dissatisfied with the order dated 05.03.2011, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition being No. 35 of 2011 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge IV, Bihwani. By order dated 12.05.2011, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notice which the respondent received at Bhiwani. In view of non-payment of the cheque amount, the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani. 8) Inasmuch as the issue in question is directly considered by this Court in K. Bhaskaran (supra), before going into the applicability of other decisions, it is useful to refer the relevant portion of the judgment in paras 10 and 11 of the said case which reads thus: 10. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try this case and hence the High Court should not have converted the acquittal into conviction on the strength of the evidence collected in such a trial. Of course, the trial court had upheld the pleas of the accused that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. 11. We fail to comprehend as to how the trial court could have found so regarding the jurisdiction question. Under Section 177 of the Code every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed . The locality where the Bank (which dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be regarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below: 178. (a)-(c) * * * (d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 9) Para 11 of K. Bhaskaran (supra), as quoted above, clarified the place in the context of territorial jurisdiction as per the fifth component, namely, failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt. As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the respondent, the place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inasmuch as the interpretation relates to filing of complaint within the statutory time period of six months, we are of the view that the reliance on the law laid down in Isher Alloy Steel (supra) has no relevance as far as the present case is concerned. In fact, that is the reason that in Isher Alloy Steel (supra), the judgment in K.Bhaskaran (supra) was not discussed since territorial jurisdiction was not the issue in that case. In view of the same, the definition of the term the bank envisaged in Isher Alloy Steel (supra) cannot be employed to decide the jurisdictional aspect and dilute the ratio of the judgment in K. Bhaskaran (supra). Hence, we are of the view that on the strength of the judgment in Isher Alloy Steel (supra) defining the term the bank , it cannot be said that jurisdiction to file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not lie at the place of drawee s bank. To put it clearly, the judgment in Isher Alloy Steel (supra) does not affect the ratio of the judgment in K.Bhaskaran (supra) which provides for jurisdiction at the place of residence of the payer and the payee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment in Isher Alloy Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint as, admitedly, the notice was sent by the complainant to the accused from Delhi and the complainant was having its Registered Office at Delhi and was carrying on business at Delhi. The learned Judge has also observed that the accused failed to make payment at Delhi as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the complainant at Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused. Thereafter, the accused approached this Court. This Court considered Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also referred to K.Bhaskaran s case (supra) and quoted the five components of offence under Section 138 which have been noted in paragraph supra. This Court reiterated that the five different acts which are the components of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were done in five different localities, any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a complaint at any of those places. Ultimately, this Court held that the Chandigarh Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the parties w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction. In the complaint in question, it is specifically stated that the dishonour took place at Bhiwani. We are also satisfied that nothing said in Harman Electronics (supra) had adverse impact on the complainant s case in the present case. 13) As observed earlier, we must note that in K. Bhaskaran (supra), this Court has held that Section 178 of the Code has widened the scope of jurisdiction of a criminal court and Section 179 of the Code has stretched it to still a wider horizon. Further, for the sake of repetition, we reiterate that the judgment in Ishar Alloy (supra) does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran (supra) which provides jurisdiction at the place of residence of the payer and the payee. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances and even on merits, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant accused. 14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the ratio laid down in K. Bhaskaran (supra) squarely applies to the case on hand. The said principle was correctly applied by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court. Consequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
