9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeds arrangement..." on 04.08.2006 at Indore. 4. The appellant issued a legal notice on 26.08.2006, which was served on the respondent - Inderpal Singh on 06.09.2006, demanding the amount depicted in the cheque. The appellant informed the respondent, that he would be compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if payment was not made by the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. 5. Consequent upon the issuance of the aforementioned legal notice wherein the respondent was required to reimburse the cheuqe amount to the appellant, and the respondent having failed to discharge his obligation, proceedings were initiated by the appellant on 13.10.2006 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The accused-respondent - Inderpal Singh, preferred an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contesting the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the above cheque drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh. The prayer made by the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, and pointedly invited our attention to the conclusions drawn by this Court in paragraph 58, which is extracted hereunder: "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 cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 are being extracted hereunder: "3. In the principal Act, section 142 shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- (2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,-- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation - For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account." 4. In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely:- 142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments (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 the 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. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case would also not non-suit the appellant for the relief claimed. 12. We are in complete agreement with the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied, that Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
