9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... create jurisdiction of the Gurgaon Court simply because depositing the cheque (for encashment) at a place, other than the place of its issuance. Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- keeping in view of principle of law laid down in K. Bhaskaran's case [ 1999 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT] , it is held that complaint is maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon as the complainant company (respondent herein) has its corporate office at Gurgaon and the collecting bank with regard to the cheque in question is situated at Gurgaon. The criminal courts at Gurgaon have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. Regarding Security Cheque - There can be no doubt regarding the fact that the security cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs availed loan of ₹ 20 lacs from the respondent-Company, engaged in the business of disbursement of various kinds of loans and promised to make regular EMI for the return of loan. The respondent-company is having its Corporate office at Indiabulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. In discharge of aforesaid loan liability, the petitioner issued cheque No. 854718 dated 27.7.2010 for a sum of ₹ 20 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata in favour of the respondent-company. The petitioner assured that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. The respondent-company presented the cheque with its Banker ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Gurgaon for encashment. The said cheque was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 10.8.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Cri.) 458. His additional plea is that the cheque which was presented for encashment was actually a security cheque and hence no liability would arise by dishonour of such a cheque. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhya Balan, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Cri.) 309 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1284, a complaint u/s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed at any of the five places where the acts, which constitute the offence, are committed/done. These five acts are: - drawing of the cheque - presentation of the cheque to the bank - returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank - giving notice in wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is complete only when all the five ingredients (referred above) are present i.e. the constituent acts have been committed. Hence, if the acts that constitute the offence are committed in different areas, over which different courts have appropriate jurisdiction, there is no reason to restrict the jurisdiction of such courts to only one court. In other words, offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would fall in the procedural purview of Section 178(d) of the Cr.P.C. in case the acts constituting the offence are committed in courts of different territorial jurisdiction. 7. In order to make the aforesaid principle more comprehensible, let us take the help of an illust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Legal Cell of Company A at Gurgaon thereupon issued a Notice to Company B, as envisaged under the Negotiable instruments Act and addresses it to the Head office of Company B at Madras/Chennai. Company B does not make the payment with in the prescribed period of 15 days. 8. Superimposing the facts of this illustration on the principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra), the jurisdiction will vest in any of the following competent court to entertain a complaint u/s. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act: - drawing of the cheque - i.e. at Bombay/Mumbai - presentation of the cheque to the bank - i.e. at Delhi - returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank - i.e. at Delhi - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
