Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1943 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of evidence - territorial Jurisdiction - Whether the complaint ought to have been filed before the Hospet Court instead of Sandur Court as Sandur Court without territorial jurisdiction? - Whether the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record and the same is perverse? - HELD THAT:- Having read the proviso of amended Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 142(2) and also the explanation as well as Section 142-A regarding validation of transfer of pending cases, it is clear that any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases should be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 142. Further, in Section 142-A, it is specific that, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. Having analyzed Section 142(2) and also the explanation and also Section 142-A, and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra i.e. M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Inderpal Singh, [2015 (12) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the jurisdiction for initiating the proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, inter-alia, in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection that too through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account - Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, a reference may be made to Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, whereby Section 142A was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of Sub-Section (1) thereof leaves no room for any doubt, that insofar as the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, on the issue of jurisdiction, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would have to give way to the provisions of the instant enactment on account of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 142A. Likewise, any judgment, decree, order or direction issued by a Court would have no effect insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned. The Apex Court comes to the conclusion that based on Section 142A, to the effect, that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT], would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the said case. The Apex Court interpreting the proviso of Section 138, 142A, 142(2) and also Section 142(a) of N.I. Act, comes to the conclusion that the Indore Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. In the case on hand, the cheque was issued in 2007 and the same was presented in 2007 itself and the same was dishonored. The endorsement was given by the branch at Hospet of the complainant who presented the cheque in Hospet and case is filed before the Sandur Court. When such being the case, the proviso of Amendment Act of 2015, aptly applicable to the case on hand - the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted and there is force in the contention of the counsel for revision petitioner to interfere with the order of the Court below and to set aside the judgment of conviction and confirmation - 1st question is affirmative - consideration of 2nd question does not arise in law. The impugned order passed by the lower Court as well as the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside - The revision petition is allowed.
|