Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.
Nalam Nageshwara Rao & Co. and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Fungicides India Ltd. - Respondent
561-A Cr.P.C. No. 09/2014
Decided On : 06-05-2015
For the Appellant :M.A. Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Z.A. Shah, Sr. Advocate and Hanan, Advocate
The Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act applies to pending cases, emphasizing the importance of the drawee bank's location in determining jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Jurisdiction - Section 138 - Section 177 of Cr.P.C. - Section 184 of Cr.P.C. - Section 220(1) of Cr.P.C. - Section 182(1) of Cr.P.C. - Section 145(2) - Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 138 of NI Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as dealer/distributor in Fertilizers and Pesticides, gave signed blank cheques as security to the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging fraudulent filling of the cheques. The petitioners challenged the complaint on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act applies to the pending complaint. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court and raise their objections there.
Issues: Jurisdiction under Section 138 of NI Act, fraudulent filling of cheques, competency of the complainant, and delay in trial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act governs the pending complaint. The petitioners must raise their objections before the trial court.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the case. The petitioners are to appear before the trial court on a specified date.
Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.
1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash/dismiss the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and pending adjudication before the trial court. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as dealer/distributor in Fertilizers and Pesticides. They had given two signed blank cheques bearing Nos. 647394 and 647395 drawn on Karnataka Bank of Guntur as security to the respondent on 17.09.1999. However, the said Bank account was closed by them on 27.12.1999 and the petitioners opened their account at Karnataka Bank Limited Vijayvada. It is stated that information about the closure of the account and opening of new Bank account was conveyed to the respondent on 29.12.1999. It is alleged that the respondent fraudulently filled in the blank cheque No. 647394 when the same were not given in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. The complaint was filed at Srinagar on 10.08.2001.
2. The petitioners had earlier invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of a similar petition which was dismissed on 17.12.2011. The present petition has been filed on the ground that certain new fact has come to the knowledge of the petitioner which necessitated filing of the fresh petition.
3. The grounds taken in the present petition are that the complainant through manipulation filled in the blanks in the cheque and put the date as 10.08.2001 when the petitioner did not maintain any account in Karnataka Bank of Guntur on the said date; therefore, according to the petitioners, Section 138 of the NI Act cannot be invoked; that the complaint has not been filed by the competent person; that since the cheque was drawn on Karnataka Bank, Guntur, the courts at Srinagar have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint etc. etc.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties v perused the record and considered the matter.
5. The complaint in the instant case has been filed way back on 11.10.2001. Perusal of the trial court record reveals that by order dated 17.12.2001 passed by this Court in the earlier 561-A Cr.P.C. petition No. 80/2001, among other things, the Court had observed and directed as under:
"20. Enough is enough. The complaint is pending for last 11 years.; Expeditious disposal of the same shall be in keeping with the canons of justice. Trial court shall proceed in the matter with convenient speed by scheduling the case in a manner so as to ensure disposal within the shortest possible period.
21. The petitioner (accused) has to come from Andhra Pradesh, it may not be convenient for him to appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing. The trial court shall consider their motion for dispensing with personal appearance subject to appearance through counsel or authorised agent and subject to the condition that when the presence shall be indispensable, they shall remain present in the court."
6. After passing of the aforesaid order by this Court no substantial progress appears to have been made in the trial of the case. However, in the meantime, the Supreme Court has been pleased to review its earlier decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, and held that the general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof. Holding so, the Supreme Court observed that "we are quite alive to the magnitude of the impact that the present decision shall
