TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioners alleging that the complainant company, during the course of its business of leasing and financing provided inter-corporate deposit of ₹ 50 lacs (fifty lacs) to the petitioners; and they executed guarantee, promissory note, receipt and other connected documents. The deposit was extended from time to time at their request. It was lastly renewed for 90 days on 7.6.1997. The petitioners issued advance post dated cheque dated 30th September, 1997 drawn on Bank of India, Andheri (East), Mumbai towards discharge of the principal amount. The cheque was sent for encashment by the complainant on 4th March, 1998 through its bankers ABN Amro Bank, at New Delhi. It was return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Neco Ltd. 2001 CRI.L.J. 1250. The complainant's case is that one of its office is in Delhi; the cheque in question was deposited by them with their bank at Delhi; the complainant came to know of the dishonouring of the cheque at Delhi; notice was issued from Delhi, therefore, part of cause action had arisen in Delhi. 5. Law in this regard is settled by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. 1999 (6) Scale 272. The Supreme Court has observed that the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is complete only on the concatenation of five acts which are components of the offence. These are drawing of cheque, presentation of cheque, returning of the cheque un-paid by the drawee bank, giving notice in writing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted below: Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tied by a court having jurisdiction over any such local area . 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that the cheque must read The bank (the drawee bank) within six months. The emphasis laid by the learned counsel on the words 'a bank' and 'the bank' used in Section 138 of the NI Act, does not help the contention. Learned counsel even argued that there is a typing error in the Supreme Court judgment. There is no merit in this contention and the same is rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next argued that except the directors arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 10 in the complaint, remaining seven directors have no concern with the accused company. They did not enjoy any control over the day-to-day functioning of the company, that impleading of all directors of the company is an abuse of the proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the cause of action did not survive. I am unable to agree. In this case the cheque dated 30.9.1997 is for ₹ 50.0 lacs (Rupees fifty lacs only). It was dishonoured on 17th March, 1998. The petitioners failed to pay the amount despite notice dated 28th March, 1998. The payment of ₹ 3,62,866/- sent vide cheque dated 29th December, 1997 was accepted subject to a fresh cheque for re-payment of the principal amount being issued by the petitioners. That having not been done, it did not wash away the offence committed on the basis of previous cheque. In any case, what is the effect of such a payment can be appreciated only after trial. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the cheque in question was not gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents. This they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on basis of averments in the Petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability. The Apex Court rejected the similar contention in recent case in A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasayanna, and it was held: This is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. If for example, the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability payable under a wagering contract, it could have been said that that debt or liability is not legally enforceable as it is a claim, which is prohibited under law. This case is not a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
