9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past, there used to be considerable delay in collection of out- stationed cheques which led to number of complaints from customers and members of public at large. The average time consumed in the out-stationed cheque used to be somewhere between seven days to one month. In order to improve the service with regard to collection of out-stationed cheques, facility of cheques which are payable at par / multi-city cheques was introduced in the banking system. In order to regulate the same, Reserve Bank of India also issued policy which is known as Policy on Multi-city/payable at par CTS 2010 Standard Cheques. A perusal of the said policy would reveal that certain limit has been prescribed on payment of multi-city cheques at non-home branches as mentioned therein. There is another reason due to which the contention raised on behalf of petitioner/ complainant cannot be sustained. The cheque amount is supposed to be paid from the account of accused/respondents maintained at home branch of drawee bank. It is merely as a result of computerization of all the branches of bank, facility has been provided for encashment of cheques payable at pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forty lakhs) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022 and all cheques are payable at par at all IDBI Bank branches. 4. In order to have better understanding of facts of the cases, it would be appropriate to refer to facts of one case. The facts are being extracted from Crl. M.C. No. 4106/2014. The complainant is a private Ltd. company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Vikas Kumar Tyagi is the person-in-charge/Marketing manager of complainant company and has been duly authorized by the complainant company vide resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors and also vide special power of attorney. The complainant and accused have had substantial business transactions in the past and in lieu of the business correspondence and financial transactions complainant company had sent payments to accused persons through RTGS and in discharge of part liability towards complainant co., accused no. 3 being the director of accused no. 1 and in connivance with accused no. 2, 4 and 5 issued cheque Nos.014295 dated 17.10.2013 for ₹ 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) , 014229 dated 17.10.2013 for ₹ 28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/ accused urged that territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try cases filed under Section 138 of NI Act, would lie with Courts within whose jurisdiction the home branch of the drawee bank in which the accused has a bank account from which cheques in question have been issued, is situated and at no other place. In support of their submission, they have placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another', 2014 (9) Supreme Court Cases 129. 9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also have perused the material on record. 10. As is evident from the above discussion, the moot question involved in all these petitions is as to whether Delhi Courts would have territorial jurisdiction to try the cases instituted under Section 138 of NI Act merely because the cheques in question are 'payable at par' at all branches of drawee bank being 'multi-city cheques' and one of the branches of drawee bank is situated at Delhi. 11. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rupsingh Rathod (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed as under:- "21. The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by JMFC at that place however, can be taken only when the concomitants or constituents contemplated by the section concatenate with each other. We clarify that the place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the complaints even though non-compliance therewith will inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot be contested that considerable confusion prevails on the interpretation of Section 138 in particular and Chapter XVII in general of the NI Act. The vindication of this view is duly manifested by the decisions and conclusion arrived at by the High Courts even in the few cases that we shall decide by this judgment. We cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was itself time-barred." (emphasis supplied) 13. While agreeing with the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen, it has been further held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur in the aforesaid judgment as under:- "58. To sum up: 58.1. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. 58.2. Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138. 58.3. The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/ payee/ holder of a cheque in due course if: (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue, (b) if the complainant has demanded payment of ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the complaints for no better reason than the fact that notices demanding payment of cheque amounts were issued from such cities or the cheques were deposited for collection in their banks in those cities. Reliance is often placed on Bhaskaran case [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] to justify institution of such cases far away from where the transaction forming basis of the dishonoured cheque had taken place. It is not uncommon to find complaints filed in different jurisdiction for cheques dishonoured in the same transaction and at the same place. This procedure is more often than not intended to use such oppressive litigation to achieve the collateral purpose of extracting money from the accused by denying him a fair opportunity to contest the claim by dragging him to a distant place. Bhaskaran case [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] could never have intended to give to the complainant/payee of the cheque such an advantage. Even so, experience has shown that the view taken in Bhaskaran case [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] permitting pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me consumed in the out-stationed cheque used to be somewhere between seven days to one month. In order to improve the service with regard to collection of out-stationed cheques, facility of cheques which are 'payable at par'/ 'multi-city cheques' was introduced in the banking system. In order to regulate the same, Reserve Bank of India also issued policy which is known as Policy on Multi-city/payable at par CTS 2010 Standard Cheques. A perusal of the said policy would reveal that certain limit has been prescribed on payment of multi-city cheques at non-home branches as mentioned therein. 16. According to the said policy, if the cheque account of multi-city cheque to be presented at non-home branch in case of saving bank account, is more than ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) then same would not be accepted by non-home branch of the drawee bank and thus, it has to be presented at the home branch of the drawee bank for its encashment. Same is the position with regard to other types of bank accounts like current account, cash credits, etc. 17. There is another reason due to which the contention raised on behalf of petitioner/ complainant cannot be sustained. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
