Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Kiran Laxminarayan Maheshwari, a medical practitioner at Murbad, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents (original accused) for dishonour of a cheque for Rs.43,000/- issued towards medical bills of workers. The cheque was drawn on Union Bank of India, Thane Branch, but was deposited by the complainant with Bank of Maharashtra, Murbad Branch for collection. The cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Despite statutory notice, payment was not made. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murbad issued process against all accused. The accused challenged this order in Criminal Revision No.89 of 2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, who set aside the order issuing process solely on the ground that the JMFC Murbad lacked jurisdiction because the cheque was payable at Thane. The Sessions Court relied on Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra. The complainant filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, which held that the offence under Section 138 is completed by a concatenation of acts: drawing of cheque, presentation to the drawee bank, return unpaid, giving notice, and failure to pay. Each of these acts can occur at different places, and the court within whose jurisdiction any of these acts takes place has jurisdiction. Since the complainant deposited the cheque at Murbad for collection, that act occurred within the jurisdiction of JMFC Murbad. The High Court found that the Sessions Court misapplied the decision in Ahuja Dongre, which did not overrule K.Bhaskaran. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court order, and restored the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The offence under Section 138 can be completed by concatenation of acts including drawing of cheque, presentation to drawee bank, return unpaid, giving notice, and failure to pay - The complainant deposited the cheque at Murbad for collection, which is one of the acts constituting the offence - Therefore, JMFC Murbad had jurisdiction to issue process - The Sessions Court erred in relying on Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra without proper application (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murbad had jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the cheque was drawn on a bank at Thane but deposited for collection at Murbad.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dated 24th March 2011, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murbad issuing process against the accused. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- concatenation of acts
- territorial jurisdiction
- K.Bhaskaran principle
