9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent had time and again called the complainant in the year 2013-14, to send apple boxes in the market for sale. The complainant has exceeded the request and sent 400 apple boxes to the respondent in Narkanda, in the month of September, 2014 after assurance given by the respondent that the same may be sold out in a higher price and payment will be made promptly. The respondent has sold out the same, in a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, after deducting all the expenses and issued sale receipt to this effect. The complainant time and again requested the respondent that the amount lying with him may be given. In order to pay the legal liability, the respondent has issued cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- bearing No.146595, dated 22.9.2014, in favour of the complainant. The respondent at the time of issuance of aforesaid cheque assured the complainant that the same would be honored by his banker as and when presented by the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque through his bank State Bank of India Branch at Rohru, within its validity in his own account and the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient fund" vide memo, dated 22.12.2014, issued by the Bank, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ordinance, 2015, No.7 of 2015, the case can be filed where the cheque is presented by the drawee. 6. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements : 1. K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr. AIR 1999 SC, 3762. 2. D. Vinod Shivappa vs. Nanda Belliappa, in Case No. Appeal (crl.)1255-1261 of 2004, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2006. 3. C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and anr, 2007 (6) SCC, 555. 4. Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayaprakash M. Shah and anr. 2008, Cr. L.J. 3953. 5. M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, 2014 (12) SCC, 685. 6. Sujatha Ramanathan vs. Ramya, Hon'ble Madras High Court, decided on 7th August, 2017. 7. Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Ramesh Chandra Jain, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, decided on 20th September, 2011. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the complaint is hopelessly time barred, as report of the Post Office on 27th January, 2015 and taking the date, as the refusal date is time barred. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d statutory condition warranted its preemptory evident satiation, for hence empowering the Magistrate to take cognizance upon the complainant, "whereas" the relevant aforesaid indispensable statutory condition not evidently begetting satiation, hence barred the magistrate concerned to take cognizance upon the complainant. Consequently, in the Magistrate ordering refusal to take cognizance upon the compliant does not render his order to suffer from any legal error. [12] However, any reliance by him upon the aforesaid verdict is grossly misplaced, as the relevant paragraph thereof, does not make any explicit pronouncement that even with respect to a receipt issued by the postal authorities concerned with respect to a letter sent under UPC, the presumption embodied in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act rendering the relevant statutory presumption being attractable thereupon, contrarily there is a vivid echoing therein that since the presumption embodied in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act "on evident satiation" of the ingredients spelt therein standing begotten also thereupon renders hence insignificant any want of any communication in respect thereof in the complaint besid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, demanding the amount depicted in the cheque. The appellant informed the respondent, that he would be compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if payment was not made by the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The accused-respondent- Inderpal Singh, preferred an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 contesting the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the above cheque drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh. The prayer made by the respondent, that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated by the appellant - M/s Bridgestone Indian Pvt.Ltd. was declined on 02.06.2009. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, AIR 1999 SC 3762, to record a finding in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, dated 02.06.2009, the respondent-Inderpal Singh prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its Indore Bench, dated 05.05.2011, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, on 15.01.2016. In case the complaint filed by the appellant has been returned, it shall be re-presented before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, on the date of appearance indicated hereinabove. " 15. From the above, it is clear that the complaint was filed within time and the learned Court at Rampur Bushehar, has got territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Notice was duly served upon the respondent, as it was the same address, of which, the present petition is filed. In these circumstances, jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not required to be exercised and complaint cannot be quashed. 16. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 20th January, 2020. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 17. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
