The court clarified that jurisdiction for dishonour of cheque cases under Section 138 can be established where any act related to the offence occurred, emphasizing the broad scope of territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

CRM-65600-2011

The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 266 days in filing of the revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact he has filed the instant revision petition on 25.3.2011, whereas, the period of limitation to file the revision petition has expired on 6.3.2011. Thereupon, the Registry of this Court raised some objections on 2-3 occasions, which led to add up the total of 90 days of delay. He further submits that the delay is neither intentional, nor deliberate, but rather because of the some technical reasons, which arose because of non-compliance of filing procedure, of this Court.

3. In view of the above, the instant application is allowed and the delay of 266 days in filing the revision petition is, hereby, condoned.

Main case

4. The instant revision is preferred against the order dated 6.12.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula, whereby, the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was ordered to be held not maintainable before it being lack of territorial jurisdiction and returned the complaint for presenting it to the appropriate Court under Section 201 Cr.P.C.

5. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is "whether, the Courts at Panchkula had the territorial jurisdiction according to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint?"

6. Before this Court embarks upon the legality of the order passed by the learned trial Court concerned, it is relevant to mention here that the issue of territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is no more res-integra. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vadhyan Balan, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specified the places where the complaint can be preferred under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant paras read as under:-

"13. The above provisions in the Code should have been borne in mind when the question regarding territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try the offence was sought to be determined.

14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178 (d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:

"Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired Into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five coal areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is Idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

17. The more important point to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the caused was returned as "unclaimed." The condit