The issuance of a demand notice from within the jurisdiction of the court is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court to try a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the notice is issued by the complainant's advocate on behalf of the complainant whose office is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

( 1 ) THIS Revisional application is directed against the order dated 12. 06. 2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 1408 of 2006 rejecting the petition of the defence/ petitioner challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court for trial of the case for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

( 2 ) MR. Dipankar Dhar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that each and every part of action for constituting the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, took place beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, which took cognizance of the offence. According to him a cheque of Rs. 20,586/- was issued by the petitioner/ accused in favour of the respondent No. 1, ICICI Bank to defray a loan granted by the said bank which was presented in another branch of the said bank and was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of insufficiency of fund when the respondent No. 1 sent an Advocate's letter to the accused/ petitioner demanding payment of the cheque amount which the petitioner failed to comply with.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case which invites this Court to drive upon for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the learned Court below to entertain such petition of complaint, can be summarized as follows : -The cheque was issued by the drawer Subrata Munsi for an amount of Rs. 20,586/- drawn upon his Bank that is ICICI Bank Limited, Bhawanipore branch situated at 1-A, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Kolkata 700 020 beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Metropolitan magistrate that is the trial Court. The cheque was presented by the said bank to the ICICI Bank at 3a Gurusaday Road, Kolkata 700 019 for encashment on 17th January, 2006. But the cheque was dishonoured by the ICICI Bank, Bhawanipore Branch for insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Both these Banks are situated beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Court below.

( 4 ) AFTER the cheque was dishonoured, Pradip Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, ICICI Bank sent a notice of demand to the accused/petitioner Subrata Munsi asking him to pay the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter to his client bank directly, failing which, it was further stated, that legal action would be taken against him. Such letter of demand dated 25th January, 2006 required under Section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act was addressed to the present petitioner at his residence at 81, Jhowtala Road, Calcutta 700 017 and also at 13 Camac Street, Rajkamal Apartment, Kolkata- 7 00 017. Out of the said two addresses 81, Jhowtala Road, Calcutta-17 is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the address of Camac street is within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. But there is nothing on record to show that the said letter of demand was sent to the address at camac Street or received by the addressee at such address within the jurisdiction of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The copy of the document sent to the accused/petitioner at his address 81, Jhowtala road outside the jurisdiction of the Court has been annexed with the petition. The Annexure 'b' is the reply dated 10th February, 2006 by Mr. Dipankar dhar, learned Advocate, Calcutta High Court sent to Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, learned Advocate at his address 10, Kiran Sankar Roy Road. Calcutta denying the petitioner's liability of payment.

( 5 ) UPON failure of the petitioner to pay such cheque amount as demanded the respondent No. 1 Bank has filed this complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Metropolitan magistrate, Calcutta who took cognizance of the matter. But at the time of taking plea the accused that is the present petitioner took up the plea that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Learned metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document