TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, Branch Imam Saheb, Shopian, to the Appellant towards some business dealings and the Appellant deposited the same in UCO Bank, Sopore. When the cheque amount was not encashed and collected in the account of the Appellant in UCO Bank Sopore, the Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore. The Respondent sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. By order dated 29 November, 2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore, however, held that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below: Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment in the aforesaid case that in that case the issue was as to whether sending of a notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action for taking cognizance of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the parties had been carrying on business at Chandigarh, the Head Office of the Respondent-complainant was at Delhi but it had a branch at Chandigarh and all the transactions were carried out only from Chandigarh. On these facts, this Court held that Delhi from where the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the Respondent would not have had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This question does not arise in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
