9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , while overruling the ratio of the decision in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in [ 1999 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT ], held An interpretation should not be imparted to S.138 which will render it as a device of harassment i.e. by sending notices from a place which has no casual connection with the transaction itself, and/or by presenting the cheque(s) at any of the banks where the payee may have an account. Indubitably, Section 142 of the NI Act was amended and Section 142-A was introduced with effect from 15.06.2015, to clarify the jurisdictional issue and to address the crisis of transfer of cases as per the ratio in Dashrath Rupsingh s case [ 2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT ]. The word delivered used in Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act has no significance and significance must be given to the text for collection through an account . That is to say, delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction. Therefore, challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs argued at length, to convince this Court that Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Chengannur, lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 complaint, as per which, the complainant launched prosecution, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act hereinafter), by the accused. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as per Ext.P3, copy of the complaint, the address of the complainant is shown as Deepam House, Thayineri, Payyannur Village, Kannur District. At the same time, in Ext.P3, it has been stated that Now residing at Pournami , Thriperumthura P.O.,Mavelikkara, Alappuzha. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the cheque amount involved in the complaint is Rs.1,41,48,939/- (Rupees One Crore Forty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine only) and the said cheque was issued, pursuant to an agreement entered into between the petitioners and partners of the firm M/s Thana Square and the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said agreement. In the said agreement, the address of the complainant is shown as M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/original complainant placed a decision of the Apex Court in Tr.P(Crl.) No.273/2020, M/s Himalaya Self Farming Group Anr. v M/s Goyal Feed Suppliers, to beat the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that, as per Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account maintained by the complainant. In the said decision, the Apex Court held as under: The fact that the respondent has its Head Office at Siliguri and that there is no reason why it chose to file a complaint in Agra except to harass the petitioners, cannot also be a ground for seeking transfer. Under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. It is also argued by the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in [AIR 1999 SC 3762], held as under: The proviso to S.138 features three factors which are additionally required for prosecution to be successful. In this aspect S.142 correctly employs the term 'cause of action' as compliance with the three factors contained in the proviso are essential for the cognizance of the offence, even though they are not part of the action constituting the crime. The concatenation of all these concomitants, constituents or ingredients of S.138 is essential for the successful initiation or launch of the prosecution. However, so far as the offence itself the proviso has no role to play. Accordingly a reading of S.138 in conjunction with S.177, Cr.P.C. leaves no manner of doubt that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the place where the offence is committed. Therefore the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located. The law should not be warped for commercial exigencies. As it is 3.138 has introduced a deeming fiction of culpability, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed. 18. Regarding relief Nos.3 to 5, nothing argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate the same. It appears that those reliefs cannot be granted, since the penal consequence on dishonour of the cheque should have to be suffered by the person who issued the cheque and the same cannot be delegated to another person, in any manner. 19. In fact, as per Section 143(2)of the NI Act, the trial of a case under this Section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per Section 143(3) of the NI Act, every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. Despite the statutory mandate, trial of the cases being stalled for years and the same, no doubt, would defeat the legislative intention. 20. Before parting, it is pertinent to observe that when question of jurisdiction to be decided, the said challenge should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
