Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal writ petition filed by the accused (Narendramal Bafna and Coventry Spring & Engineering Company Limited) challenging the order of issuance of process dated 15/03/2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, Wardha in Summary Criminal Case No. 213 of 2008 and the order dated 06/03/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2010. The complainant, Mansurprasad Gupta, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that a cheque for Rs. 2,06,657/- drawn on Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Limited, MIDC Branch, Nagpur was issued by the accused but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The cheque was presented by the complainant with State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Treasury Branch, Wardha for realization, and the intimation of dishonour was received at Wardha. The accused challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Wardha court, arguing that the cheque was drawn on a Nagpur bank and the accused resided in Nagpur. The trial court and the revisional court upheld the jurisdiction. The High Court, after examining the facts and legal provisions, held that the presentation of the cheque at Wardha and the receipt of dishonour intimation at Wardha gave the Wardha court territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the complainant's wife was employed at Wardha and the complainant resided there, and that the demand notice was also served at Wardha. The court dismissed the petition, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court held that the place where the cheque is presented for collection and the intimation of dishonour is received by the complainant confers territorial jurisdiction upon the court at that place, even if the accused resides elsewhere and the drawee bank is located elsewhere. The court relied on the principle that the offence under Section 138 is committed at the place where the cheque is dishonoured and the demand notice is served. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Sections 177, 178, 179, CrPC - The court interpreted that the expression 'cause of action' in cheque dishonour cases includes the place where the cheque is presented for collection and the dishonour intimation is received, as these are essential ingredients of the offence. The court distinguished between the place of issuance and the place of presentation, holding that the latter is relevant for jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial Magistrate at Wardha had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the cheque was drawn on a bank at Nagpur but presented for collection at Wardha and dishonour intimation received at Wardha
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, confirming the orders of the trial court and revisional court, holding that the Magistrate at Wardha had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 is determined by the place where the cheque is presented for collection and the intimation of dishonour is received
- not the residence of the accused
