Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, Crompton Greaves Limited, filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonour of a cheque. The cheque was drawn on a bank at Thane, but was presented for collection at the appellant's bank in Goa. The Single Judge (U. D. Salvi, J.) noticed a conflict between his earlier decision in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Shivam Traders (Criminal Revision Application No. 7 of 2009) and the decision of Kingaonkar, J. in Dipti Kumar Mohanty v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 497 of 2008). The matter was referred to a Division Bench. The Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (AIR 1999 SC 3762) held that an offence under Section 138 NI Act consists of several acts: drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque, return of the cheque, giving of notice, and failure to pay. Each of these acts can occur in different places, and under Section 178(d) CrPC, the complaint can be filed in any of those places. The Division Bench held that the place where the payee's bank is located is a place where the offence is committed because the cheque is presented there and dishonour occurs there. The court overruled the contrary view in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Shivam Traders and upheld the view in Dipti Kumar Mohanty v. Videocon Industries Ltd. The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was directed to be entertained by the competent court at Goa.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 178(d) CrPC - Offence under Section 138 NI Act consists of several acts done in different local areas - The place where the cheque is presented for collection and the place of the payee's bank where the cheque is dishonoured are both relevant - The complaint can be filed at the place where the payee's bank is located, as the dishonour occurs there - Held that the view in Dipti Kumar Mohanty v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (MANU/MH/01202009) is correct and the contrary view in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Shivam Traders (Criminal Revision Application No. 7 of 2009) is overruled (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Which magistrate has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — whether the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place of the payee's bank where the cheque is dishonoured?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is set aside. The complaint is restored and directed to be entertained by the competent court at Goa. The view in Dipti Kumar Mohanty v. Videocon Industries Ltd. is upheld and the contrary view in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Shivam Traders is overruled.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction for Section 138 NI Act
- Section 178(d) CrPC
- Place of presentation of cheque
- Place of payee's bank
- K. Bhaskaran principles
