Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Jurisdiction Affirmed. The court confirmed that jurisdiction lies where the cheque is presented and dishonoured.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning a dishonoured cheque. The appellant, a director of a company, issued a post-dated cheque to the respondent, which was later returned unpaid due to a stop payment request. The respondent filed a complaint in Bhiwani after sending a legal notice, which the appellant contested on jurisdictional grounds. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to this appeal. The court analyzed the principles of jurisdiction as established in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, emphasizing that the offence under Section 138 is completed at the place where the drawer resides or where the payee resides. The court noted that the respondent had presented the cheque in Bhiwani, where it was dishonoured, thus affirming the jurisdiction of the Bhiwani court. The court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts' application of the law and confirming that the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The interim order was vacated as a result of the dismissal.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Courts under N.I. Act - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The court at Bhiwani had jurisdiction to try the complaint as the respondent was a resident of Bhiwani and the cheque was presented there. The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be established at the place of residence of the payee or drawer, as per the principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (Paras 8-14).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Court where a cheque is deposited for collection has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the jurisdiction of the Bhiwani court to try the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, based on the principles established in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan.

Law Points

  • territorial jurisdiction
  • cheque dishonour
  • Negotiable Instruments Act
  • Code of Criminal Procedure
  • jurisdictional principles
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (SC) (07) 18

Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2013

2013-07-01

P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar

Huzefa Ahmadi, Mahabir Singh

Nishant Aggarwal

Kailash Kumar Sharma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal regarding jurisdiction under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to quash the complaint filed against him.

Filing Reason

Complaint filed due to dishonour of a cheque issued by the appellant.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the appellant's petition regarding jurisdiction.

Issues

Jurisdiction of the court under Section 138 of the N.I. Act Applicability of K. Bhaskaran case to the current dispute

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the court at Bhiwani lacked jurisdiction. Respondent contended that jurisdiction was properly established as per K. Bhaskaran.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be established at the place where the cheque is presented and dishonoured, as well as at the residence of the drawer or payee.

Judgment Excerpts

The question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the Court, where a cheque is deposited for collection, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We hold that the ratio laid down in K.Bhaskaran (supra) squarely applies to the case on hand.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a complaint in the High Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision in Service Tax Dispute — No Service Tax on Interchange Fee. The court found that the interchange fee was part of the merchant discount already subjected to service tax, thus not liable for additional taxati...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in NI Act Case, Sets Aside Acquittal Based on Incorrect Application of Bombay Money Lenders Act. Court holds that mere filing of previous complaints does not prove money lending business without license under Section 1...