Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras, in Criminal Case No.856/2005. The Magistrate had rejected the applicant's application at Exh.51, which challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of a complaint filed by the non-applicant, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The facts reveal that the complainant, a resident of Soyjana, Washim, was serving as a driver at Bhandara and was on friendly terms with the accused, a resident of Bhandara. The complainant gave a hand loan of Rs.35,000 to the accused, who issued three cheques of Rs.15,000, Rs.10,000, and Rs.10,000 drawn on Bank of India, Bhandara branch, payable in August, September, and October 2004. The complainant presented these cheques for encashment on 27 January 2005 at the Digras branch of Yavatmal Urban Co-operative Bank. The cheques were returned by Bank of India, Bhandara with the endorsement that the account was closed. The complainant issued a notice on 2 March 2005 through an advocate at Digras, calling upon the accused to pay the amount. The accused received the notice on 10 March 2005 but failed to pay. The complainant then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Magistrate at Digras. The accused challenged the jurisdiction of the Digras court, arguing that the offence under Section 138 is committed at the place where the drawee bank branch is situated, i.e., Bhandara, and not at Digras where the cheque was presented. The learned Magistrate rejected this application, holding that the court at Digras had jurisdiction because the cheque was presented there. The High Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 609, held that the jurisdiction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the court having territorial jurisdiction over the branch of the drawee bank where the payee maintains his account. The place of presentation of the cheque is not relevant. Since the cheque was drawn on Bank of India, Bhandara branch, and the complainant's account was at Bhandara, the Magistrate at Digras had no jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the application, quashed the order of the Magistrate, and directed the return of the complaint for presentation before the proper court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Jurisdiction for offence under Section 138 lies with the court having territorial jurisdiction over the branch of the drawee bank where the payee maintains his account - The place where the cheque is presented for encashment is not relevant for determining jurisdiction - Held that the Magistrate at Digras lacked jurisdiction as the cheque was drawn on Bank of India, Bhandara branch and the complainant's account was at Bhandara (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the cheque was drawn on a bank at Bhandara and presented for encashment at Digras.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras dated rejecting the application at Exh.51, and directed the return of the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction for Section 138 NI Act
- Place of presentation of cheque not relevant
- Jurisdiction lies where drawee bank branch is situated
- Section 482 CrPC inherent powers
- Cognizance without jurisdiction is illegal
