9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Class, Gurgaon, (Annexure P-4); summoning order dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint are that the petitioners availed loan of Rs. 20 lacs from the respondent-Company, engaged in the business of disbursement of various kinds of loans and promised to make regular EMI for the return of loan. The respondent-company is having its Corporate office at Indiabulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. In discharge of aforesaid loan liability, the petitioner issued cheque No. 854718 dated 27.7.2010 for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs drawn on Canara Bank, Sealdah, Kolkata in favour of the respondent-company. The petitioner assured that the cheque w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than the place of its issuance. In support of his plea, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner principally relies on M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and another v. M/s. National Panasonic India Limited, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Cri.) 458. His additional plea is that the cheque which was presented for encashment was actually a security cheque and hence no liability would arise by dishonour of such a cheque. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhya Balan, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Cri.) 309 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1284, a complaint u/s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed at any of the five places where the acts, which constitute the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the jurisdiction of the Court to try cases in which an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra) has held that the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is complete only when all the five ingredients (referred above) are present i.e. the constituent acts have been committed. Hence, if the acts that constitute the offence are committed in different areas, over which different courts have appropriate jurisdiction, there is no reason to restrict the jurisdiction of such courts to only one court. In other words, offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would fall in the procedural purview of Section 178(d) of the Cr.P.C. in case the acts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank 'C' returns the same to A at Delhi. The Legal Cell of Company A is in Gurgaon to which are forwarded all the documents of the said transaction for appropriate legal action. The Legal Cell of Company A at Gurgaon thereupon issued a Notice to Company B, as envisaged under the Negotiable instruments Act and addresses it to the Head office of Company B at Madras/Chennai. Company B does not make the payment with in the prescribed period of 15 days. 8. Superimposing the facts of this illustration on the principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra), the jurisdiction will vest in any of the following competent court to entertain a complaint u/s. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and validly utilized towards the discharging of the liability of the Drawer. It cannot by any stretch be argued that a security cheque is not handed over or issued in pursuance of any undischarged liability. To hold so would defeat the whole purpose of a security cheque. In the considered opinion of the Court, a security cheque is an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the drawer that the cheque holder may use the security cheque as an alternate mode of discharging his/its liability. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on dishonouring of a security cheque no offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
