9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: "(7) We have already narrated the case of both the parties in the pleadings portion. In order to answer the only question, it is relevant to note that the undisputed facts in the context of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Bhiwani are that the drawee of the cheque i.e., the respondent/complainant is a resident of Bhiwani. The native village of the respondent, namely, village Barsana is situated in District Bhiwani. The respondent owns ancestral agricultural land at village Barsana, District Bhiwani. It is also asserted that the respondent is running his bank account with Canara Bank, Bhiwani and is also residing at the present address for the last about two decades. In view of the same, it is the claim of the respondent that he bonafidely presented the cheque in his bank at Bhiwani which was further presented to the drawer's Bank at Guwahati. The cheque was returned uncashed to the respondent's bank at Bhiwani with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". The respondent received the bounced cheque back from his bank at Bhiwani. Thereafter, the respondent sent a legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the appellant from Bhiwani. In turn, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. After saying so, this Court concluded that the complainant can choose any one of the five places to file a complaint. The further discussion in the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplainant had a Branch Office at Chandigarh although his Head Office was at Delhi. He presented the cheque given by the accused at Chandigarh. The cheque was dishonoured at Chandigarh. The complainant issued a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi. The said notice was served on the accused at Chandigarh. On failure on the part of the accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the communication of the said letter, the complainant filed a complaint at Delhi. In the complaint, it was stated that the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to try the case because the complainant was carrying on business at Delhi, the demand notice was issued from Delhi, the amount of cheque was payable at Delhi and the accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. It is further seen that the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate at Delhi. The accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Delhi before the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as, admittedly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. In other words, the court clarified only on the service in such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days, thereafter, the commission of an offence completes. We are of the view that this Court in Harman Electronics (supra) affirmed what it had said in K. Bhaskaran (supra) that court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice can have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is also relevant to point out that while holding that the Chandigarh Court has jurisdiction, this Court in Harman Electronics (supra) observed that in the case before it, the complaint was silent as to whether the said cheque was presented at Delhi. In the case on hand, it is categorically stated that the cheque was presented at Bhiwani whereas in Harman Electronics (supra) the dishonour had taken place at Chandigarh and this fact was taken into account while holding that Chandigarh court has jurisdiction. In the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I do not consider it fit to state that just because the cheques were presented at Delhi or the demand notice was sent from Delhi, Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the present case." (emphasis is ours) 4. Having taken into consideration the fact that the cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant at Delhi, and having referred to the judgments rendered by this Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyam Balan & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 510, Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswal NECO Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 609, and Harman Electronics Private Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720, the High Court accepted the prayer made by the drawee of the cheque (i.e. the respondent herein) to conclude, that the Courts at Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the appellant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Having so concluded, the Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the matter was pending, was directed to return the complaint to the respondent. Liberty was granted to the appellant, to file the returned petition before the jurisdictional Court at Kolkata. 5. It is apparent, that the conclusion drawn by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Negotiable Instruments Act and in paras 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment in the aforesaid case held as under:- "14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below: "Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 16. Thus it is clear, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egotiable Instruments Act was issued by the respondent would not have had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This question does not arise in the facts of the present case. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore for decision in accordance with law." emphasis is ours) 7. In view of the above, having taken into consideration the factual position noticed by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, we are of the view, that the High Court erred in concluding that the courts at Delhi, did not have the jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the High Court is accordingly liable to be set aside. The same is, therefore, hereby set aside. 8. Despite the conclusion drawn by us hereinabove, it would be relevant to mention, that our instant determination is based on the factual position expressed by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. During the course of hearing, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
