IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction for offenses under Section 138 of the NI Act is determined by where the cheque is presented for payment, as per Section 142(2).

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The instant revision has been preferred against the following:-

(i) The judgment and order dated 28.01.2010, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.1 of 2009, Darshan Singh Vs. Prem Sagar Dhingra, by the court of IV Additional Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the NI Act”) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. And;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 17.01.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No.09 of o2010, Prem Sagar Dhingra Vs. State and Another, by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2010, passed in the case, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

3. The case is based on a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act filed by the private respondent (“the complainant”). According to it, the revisionist had taken Rs. 60,000/- as loan from the complainant. After sometime, the revisionist gave three cheques of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. But, when the complainant presented the cheques in the Bank, they were returned with the endorsement “Account In-operative”. After dishonour of the cheques, the complainant issued a notice dated 07.09.2005 to the revisionist, but it was returned by the revisionist. Based on the complaint, the case was lodged. After preliminary enquiry, by an order dated 20.10.2005, the revisionist was summoned to answer accusation under Section 138 of the Act. The revisionist was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). The revisionist denied of having given any cheque. He also denied of having received any notice. At that stage, the revisionist told that the case has falsely been proceeded against him. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and produced certain documents, proved them. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. At that stage also, the revisionist replied that he did not give any cheque to the complainant; he does not know that the cheques were ever dishonoured; he did not receive any notice; the witness has given false evidence against him and he has been falsely implicated.

4. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2010, passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore, which was confirmed in the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised only one point. It is argued that the revisionist and the complainant had, in fact, transactions in Delhi. The cheques were given in Delhi. Therefore, the court at Haridwar has no jurisdiction in the matter.

6. The Court invited the attention of learned counsel for the revisionist to Section 142 (2) of the NI Act. On it, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that since it is a provision, there is less to say about it. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also submit that the notices were never served on the revisionist.

7. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order. In revision, general appreciation of evidence may not be done unlike appeal. Evidence may only be looked into if the irrelevant material is considered or relevant material is not considered or the finding is perverse, i.e. against the weight of an evidence.

8. It is admitted case that the cheques were presented by the complainant in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Haridwar, the Branch where he was maintaining his account. In Para 5 of his examination-in-chief, the complainant has stated that he had presented all the three cheques in the Punjab and Sindh Bank, Haridwar, which were dishonoured by the same bank on 11.08.2005. He was cross-examined on that aspect. At Pag