TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant on 04.08.2006, we are of the view that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, 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. The words “ as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.” used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision. In the above view of the matter, the instant appeal is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by its Indore Bench, dated 05.05.2011, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, on 15.01.2016. In case the complaint filed by the appellant has been returned, it shall be re-presented before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, on the date of appearance indicated hereinabove. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1557, 1562, 1563, 1564 OF 2015, (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7850, 9758, 10019, 10020 of 2011) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, AIR 1999 SC 3762, to record a finding in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, dated 02.06.2009, the respondent-Inderpal Singh preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh before its Indore Bench. Having examined the controversy in hand and keeping in mind the fact, that a number of documents were presented by the respondent Inderpal Singh during the course of hearing before the High Court, by an order dated 03.12.2009, the petition filed by the accused-respondent was disposed of, by remitting the case to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, requiring him to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the additional documents relied upon, and the judgments cited before the High Court. 7. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, yet again, by an order dated 11.01.2010 held, that he had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy raised by the appellant M/s Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 58.5 The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant. 58.6 Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured. 58.7 The general rule stipulated under Section 177 CrPC applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod s case, it is apparent, that the impugned order dated 05.05.2011, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deemed to have been transferred under this Ordinance, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1), and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in due course maintains an account). We are also satisfied, based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod s case, 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 present case arises. 13. Since cheque No.1950, in the sum of ₹ 26,958/-, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2006, was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant on 04.08.2006, we are of the view that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, 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. The words ...as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times... used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision. 14. In the above view of the matter, the instant appeal is allowed, and the impugned order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
