SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(P&H) 199

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Chahal, J.
Ess Bee Food Specialities
Versus
Kapoor Brothers
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13735 of 1990,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 19, 1991

The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is complete only when the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice, and the territorial jurisdiction lies where the creditor's office is situated.

Headnote:

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE COMPLETE ONLY WHEN PAYMENT NOT MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION LIES WHERE CREDITOR'S OFFICE IS SITUATED - COMPANY - LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS, MANAGERS, ETC. - ONLY PERSON IN CHARGE OF AFFAIRS OR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCT OF BUSINESS LIABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, a firm, and its partners, challenged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dishonoring cheques. They argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was not served.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was complete only when the petitioners failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice. The territorial jurisdiction lay where the creditor's office was situated, as the offence was complete when the petitioners failed to discharge their liability to the creditor. However, the court quashed the complaint against one of the partners as the allegations did not establish his involvement in the offence.

Issues: 1. Whether the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was complete upon dishonor of the cheques or upon failure to make payment within 15 days of notice? 2. Whether the court at Ambala had territorial jurisdiction to try the case? 3. Whether the complaint against one of the partners was maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and the decision in Paramjit Singh v. Job, holding that the offence was complete only when the drawer failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice. 2. The court held that the territorial jurisdiction lay where the creditor's office was situated, as the offence was complete when the petitioners failed to discharge their liability to the creditor. 3. The court relied on Section 141 of the NI Act and the decisions in Puran Devi v. Z. S. Klar and Bansal Tool Co. v. Income-tax Officer, holding that only the person in charge of the affairs or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company could be held liable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part, quashing the complaint against one of the partners and dismissing it against the firm and the other partner.

Judgment

1. This criminal miscellaneous u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been brought by M/s Ess Bee Food Specialities, Village Saidpura (near Dera Bassi), District Patiala, petitioner-1 through its Managing Partner Baljinder Singh, Petitioner-2 and partner Jagpal Singh, petitioner 3 for quashing of the complaint dated 22-12-1989, Annexure P1 u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and S. 406/470, IPC, the subsequent proceedings and the impugned orders, Annexures P2 and P3.

2. The impugned complaint was brought by M/s Kapoor Brothers Roller Flour Mills, Panchkula (respondent firm herein) u/S 138 of the Act, read with Ss. 406/420, IPC. The respondent-firm pleaded therein that it was a registered partnership-firm, carrying on business of running a flour mill. It supplies flourmill products. In December 1988, petitioner 2 approached the respondent-firm for the supply of Maida on regular basis, on credit and this offer was accepted. It was agreed that the payment shall be made within 10 days of the date of supply of the Maida as per the bill. Interest at the rate of 23% per annum was to be charged if the payment was not made within the stipulated period of 10 days. The supplies were then made. The transactions were entered in the daily sales register and the Ledger Book maintained. A running account was opened and payments were made though irregularly. As per the account books, a balance of Rs.1,24,640.00 stood due to the respondent firm from the petitioner-firm. Some of the cheques issued were dishonoured and ultimately, a registered notice was issued on 24-10-1989, but, in spite of the same, and the information being delivered of dishonouring of the cheques, the payment was not made. A meeting was then arranged. Baljinder Singh, petitioner-2 issued two cheques, one dated 2-11-1989 for Rupees 15,900/- and the second dated 9-11-1989 for Rs. 11,000.00 as part payment. These cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 17B, Chandigarh with the assurance that the same would be encashed on presentation to the Bank. These cheques were then presented, but were received back with the endorsement "refer to drawer". After receiving the information of the dishonouring of the cheques, a legal notice dated 25-11-1989 was issued. Two of the notices were received back undelivered, while one was delivered to Baljinder Singh petitioner-2. In spite of this service of notice, payment in question was not made and as such, the offence u/S. 138 of the Act was committed. From the very beginning, the intentions of the petitioners were dishonest and as such, offences u/Ss. 406/420, IPC had also been committed.

3. The learned Magistrate issued process u/S. 138 of the Act. A revision was then preferred to the Court of Session which was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala who, vide order dated 14-7-1990, dismissed the same.

4. The petitioner-firm challenges the orders of the Magistrate and of the Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that the Court at Ambala had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case since the cheques were issued and dishonoured at Chandigarh. The petitioners are carrying on their business at Chandigarh. If any offence was committed, it was within the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court. Statutory notice u/S. 138 of the Act had also not been served and as such, no complaint was maintainable, and the criminal proceedings had been brought with the intention of harassment and humiliation to the petitioner-firm.

5. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, the following provisions of the Act may be quoted :

"Section 30. Liability of drawer. - The drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque is bound in case of dishonour by the drawee or acceptor thereof, to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonour has been given to, or received by, the drawer as hereinafter provided. S.138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. - Where any cheque drawn by a per
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top