IMPORTANT POINT
Date on which intimation of dishonour of cheque is received has to be excluded while computing 30 days period for issuance of notice.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioners seeks quashing of order dated 14.08.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in complaint case No.225/1/12 titled as M/s IRIS Computers Ltd. vs. M/s. CCS Infotech Ltd. & Ors. whereby the petitioners were summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. In short, the case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) on the allegations, inter alia, that the complainant is involved in the business of computers and peripherals, having its branch office at A-155, Road No.4, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi-110057. The accused Nos.2 to 6 in the complaint are the directors of accused No.1 company (petitioner No.1 herein). The petitioner No.1, acting through other accused, has acted as a retail dealer of the products distributed by respondent No.2. In the normal course of business, the accused had ordered for goods which were partly supplied by the complainant vide invoices No. N201-22-1005-046 dated 31st May, 2010;N101-22-1005-105 dated 27th May, 2010 and N101-22-1005-149 dated 31st May, 2010 aggregating a sale of Rs.22,64,179/-. The petitioner No.1 had issued cheque bearing No.168642 dated 18.01.2012 of Rs.21,41,429 drawn on Tamilnad Merchantile Bank, Chennai, which got dishonoured on presentation with the remarks insufficient funds. The information about the said dishonoured cheque was given to respondent No.2/complainant on 25.01.2012 from its bankers i.e. Citi Bank, New Delhi. Therefore the respondent No.2 issued legal notice of demand dated 21.02.2012 by registered AD post. Despite service of notice, the accused persons failed to make payment of amount of the cheque and therefore, complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties confine their arguments only on the ground that notice of demand was not issued by the complainant within 30 days of the knowledge of dishonour of the cheque.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has failed to issue legal notice within thirty days of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of cheque as per Section 138 (b) of NI Act. It was further contended that learned trial Court could not appreciate that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of respondent No.2 and against the petitioner No.1 company. The invoices were raised by respondent No.2 at Chennai. Earlier payments were made at Chennai and goods were supplied at Chennai, as such, the Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Further, the payee of the cheque have no option but to present the cheque for encashment to drawers bank.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment in Siva Kumar vs. Natarajan, (2009) 13 SCC 623. wherein it was held that the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date on which the intimation of dishonour of cheque or instrument was received.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant urged that there was no delay in issuance of demand notice. The information of dishonour of cheque was received by the complainant on 25.01.2012 and demand notice dated 21.02.2012 was issued on 24.02.2012, excluding the day of receipt of information from the bank. As such the demand notice clearly falls within a period of thirty days as required by Section 138 (b) of the NI Act.

7. It was further submitted by counsel for the respondent No.2 that the Courts in New Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as the cheque was presented at Delhi and also, demand notice was issued from Delhi. Hence, as per Section 138 of NI Act which has various cause of action and if any cause of action arises at particular place, that place have jurisdiction to try a complaint.

8