TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statutory notices from Delhi by itself is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts to entertain the complaints. An offence under Section 138 is committed no sooner the cheque issued on an account maintained by the drawer with a bank and representing discharge of a debt or a liability in full or part is dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds or on the ground that the same exceeds the arrangements made with the banker. Prosecution of the offender and cognizance of the commission of the offence is, however, deferred by the proviso to Section 138 till such time the complainant has the cause of action to institute such proceedings. This Court found that the proviso to Section 138 does not constitute ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138. Issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of the cheque in a Delhi bank by the payee or receipt of the notice by the accused demanding payment in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi. What is important is whether the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situate within the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance. In that view, we see no reason to interfere with the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Courts in Delhi, relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510. It was in terms contended before the High Court that in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Harman s case (supra) the complaints could not have been entertained nor could the accused persons be summoned for trial in the Courts in Delhi. It was also argued that number of such complaints is so large that the Magistrates in Delhi were unable to handle and effectively manage the docket explosion and attend to what was otherwise within their jurisdiction and called for their immediate attention. 3. The contentions urged by the Committee found favour with the High Court who relying upon the decisions of this Court in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur and Anr. (AIR 1966 SC 81) and Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. V. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377 held that the Constitution did not place any fetters on the extraordinary jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court in a situation where Courts are flooded with complaints which they had no jurisdiction to entertain. The High Court further held that a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciency of funds or on the ground that the same exceeds the arrangements made with the banker. Prosecution of the offender and cognizance of the commission of the offence is, however, deferred by the proviso to Section 138 till such time the complainant has the cause of action to institute such proceedings. This Court found that the proviso to Section 138 does not constitute ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138. The legal position on the subject was summed up in the following words: To sum up: (i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) The cause of actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at we need to add is that while examining the question of jurisdiction the Metropolitan Magistrates concerned to whom the High Court has issued directions shall also keep in view the decision of this Court in Dashrath s case (supra). 7. With the above observations these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. T. S. Thakur, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These three appeals arise out of an order dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Bombay whereby Criminal M.C. Nos. 281 of 2010, 282 of 2010 and 296 of 2010 filed by the appellants have been dismissed and the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate returning the complaints filed by the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for presentation before the competent Court upheld. 3. It is common ground that the cheques in all the three cases had been issued on different branches namely, Bank of India, Ruby Park and ICICI Bank, Kolkata and Punjab National Bank, Chapraula, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. which are outside Delhi. Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were all the same filed in Delhi because the cheques had been deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The orders passed by the Magistrate were set aside and the complaints directed to be returned for presentation before the competent Court. Aggrieved by the said orders the complainant preferred Criminal Applications No.1491, 2759 and 2760 of 2010 before the High Court who relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and three other decisions of the Bombay High Court held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cheque had been presented before a bank at Bombay which fact was, according to the High Court, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to entertain the complaints and try the cases. The orders passed by the Revisional Court were accordingly set aside and the Magistrate directed to proceed with the trial of the cases expeditiously as already noticed. The present special leave petitions have been filed by the accused persons assailing the view taken by the High Court. 4. A plain reading of the orders passed by the High Court would show that the judgment proceeds entirely on the authority of the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt held that the issue of notice to the drawer of the cheque does not by itself give rise to a cause of action to confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance. 4. The view taken by the Magistrate based as it is on the decision of this Court in Harman s case (supra) does not, in our opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97 where this Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such cheque was presented or notice issued. Following the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod s case (supra), we affirm the order passed by the High Court. 5. These appeals accordingly fail and are, hereby, dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. T. S. Thakur, J. Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.338 of 2010 and Transferred Case (Crl.) No.4 of 2012 are delinked and to be posted for hearing sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
