The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of territorial jurisdiction in maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and the requirement to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The judgment also emphasizes the implications of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, on the transfer of cases to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the NI Act.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 8th January, 2016 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.3775/15 captioned as 'Apparel Export Promotion Council v. Collage Cultures & Others', whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter the 'NI Act') was dismissed. The appellant had re-presented its complaint but the same was not entertained, as it was filed beyond the period as stipulated by the court where it was initially filed, while returning the complaint. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant could maintain its complaint as re-presented.

2. Briefly stated, the controversy involved in the present petition arises in the following context. The appellant is a company incorporated under Section 25 of Companies Act, 1956 and is sponsored by the Government of India. It was formed, inter alia, with the object of promoting exports of readymade garments from India to various parts of the world. It is also assigned the task of administering the Garments Policy issued by the Government of India. As a part of its mandate, all persons exporting garments from India to the rest of the world are required to be registered with the appellant.

3. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the appellant under Registration Certificate No.37114. The respondent issued seven cheques: cheque bearing number 566352 for a sum of Rs. 29,200/-; cheque bearing no. 566353 for Rs. 2,77,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566354 for Rs. 5,40,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566355 for Rs. 4,17,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566356 for Rs. 4,00,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566357 for Rs. 5,17,980/-; and cheque bearing no. 566358 for Rs. 1,86,060/- (all dated 1 st June, 2003), for a total sum of Rs. 23,69,200/- for revalidation of its Past Performance Entitlement (PPE), which is permissible under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. The return memo dated 27/28th November, 2003 indicated the reason for dishonour of the cheques as 'funds insufficient'.

4. The appellant caused a legal notice dated 4th December, 2003 to be sent to the respondents by speed post on 5th December, 2003 (Ex. C22). Since the respondents failed to make the payment within the stipulated time, the appellant preferred a complaint dated 17th January, 2004 under Section 138 of the NI Act.

5. The appellant led pre-summoning evidence and tendered its evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.C-1/A). It relied upon the cheques (Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10), return memos (Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-17), legal demand notice, registry receipts and proof of dispatch (Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-22). The respondent and its constituent partners were summoned by the learned MM by an order dated 21st January, 2004. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued against the accused persons, as they failed to appear.

6. In/Around December, 2004 the respondent preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Main Petition (CMM no. 3011/2004) before this Court, inter alia, praying that the subject summoning order be recalled and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act be dismissed. The said petition (CMM No.3011/2014) was allowed on 11th October, 2007 and the summoning order dated 21st January, 2004 was quashed.

7. Being aggrieved by said order dated 11th October, 2007 passed by this Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India [SLP (Crl.) 5796/2008] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court allowed the same and the appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.1678/2012. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 17th October, 2012, directed the Ld. Trial Court to proceed with the trial, but not pass the final judgment without the leave of the Supreme Court. The parties were given liberty to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of their respective clai