TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the circumstances of the instant case, the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in relation to the three cheques issued on behalf of the respondent no.1, the details of which have already been adverted to hereinabove, lies with the concerned Court at Meerut, U.P. Petition allowed. - Crl. M.C. No.1684/2016, Crl. M.C. No.1685/2016 and Crl. M.C. No.1698/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2019 - MS. ANU MALHOTRA J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Nikita Batra, Ms. Neha Rajpal, Ms. Pankhuri, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to R-4. JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The three petitions i.e. Crl. M.C. No.1684/2016, Crl. M.C. No.1685/2016 and Crl. M.C. No.1698/2016, all filed by the same petitioner M/s Somani Worsted Pvt. Ltd. assail the common order dated 22.03.2016 of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.117/2015, Crl. Rev. No.118/2015 and Crl. Rev. No.119/2015, vide which the orders dated 21.08.2015 and 15.10.2015 of the learned MM-05, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, which came into force on 15.06.2015 with reference to the Clause 3(2) and Clause 4 thereof which are as under: Clause 3(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. Clause 4 142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub- section (2) of section 142 as if that sub-section had been in force at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d trial Court has further observed to the effect that it had considered the submission of both sides and that it had become functuous officio with the order dated 21.08.2015 having attained finality and could not review its own order. 8. The Revisional Court observed vide para 9 of the impugned order to the effect:- 9. Having heard the arguments of both the parties and taking into consideration the fact that since amendment vide Section 142 A (1), Amendment Act of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 7 of 2015, the jurisdiction has been restored to the place where the cheque was presented by the complainant. I have gone through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, the relevant sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, 2015 are reproduced verbatim which are as under:- 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 colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by set aside. and thus observed to the effect that as per returning memo dated 03.04.2012, the complaint had its account at the Jhandewalan Branch, New Delhi wherein the cheques were presented and thus the impugned orders dated 21.08.2015 15.10.2015 were set aside. 9. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner herein is to the effect that when the complaint was instituted in June, 2012, the territorial jurisdiction lay with the Court at Delhi in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3762 wherein it was observed to the effect:- 14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27.10.2015, which certifies that the petitioner herein maintained a current account bearing No.036805002623 with the ICICI Bank branch situated at Plot No.612, Opp. Rani Mill, Near Baghpat Gate, Delhi Road, Meerut, U.P. and further certifies that the petitioner had deposited cheque bearing no. 556029 for a sum of ₹ 1,24,99,995/-, cheque bearing No.556035 for a sum of ₹ 13,60,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.556028 for a sum of ₹ 2,25,00,000/-, all drawn on Citi Bank, Delhi for collection but the same were returned unpaid by the paying banker on 03.04.2012 mentioning the reason account closed . The copy of the summary of accounts of the petitioner in relation to the account bearing no. 036805002623 was also placed on record by the petitioner, which shows the account of the petitioner to be maintained at the Base Branch, 612, Ground Floor, Opp. Rani Mill, Delhi Road, Meerut-250002, U.P. and shows the rejection of the three cheques bearing nos. 556029, 556035 and 556028 with the account of the drawer being shown to have been closed. 13. It is apparent thus that the complainant s base branch of its bank is situated at 612, Ground Floor, Opp. Rani Mill, Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. 16. It is thus apparent in view of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75 as observed in para 10 thereof, which observes to the effect:- 10. In order to overcome the legal position declared by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case , learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). A perusal of Section 1(2) thereof reveals, that the Ordinance would be deemed to have come into force with effect from 15.06.2015. It is therefore pointed out to us, that the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 is in force. Our attention was then invited to Section 3 thereof, whereby, the original Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be amended, and also, Section 4 thereof, whereby, Section 142A was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sections 3 and 4 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. . . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
