Legislative amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act can supersede judicial decisions if not unconstitutional.

[Order of the Court was made by Subramonium Prasad, J.

The instant challenge is to the amendment to Article 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, primarily on the ground that the amendment goes completely contrary to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3519

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this amendment amounts to setting at naught a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court which is not permissible in law. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled right from the decision in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd., etc., v. Broach Borough Municipality and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 192 that Legislation can take away the basis of a judgment.

3. The Honourable Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) summed up the law relating to the place of suing as under:

“56. To sum up:

(i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.

(ii) Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138.

(iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue.

(b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque and (c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of such notice.

(iv) The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(v) The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant.

(vi) Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured.

(vii) 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.”

4. In order to resolve the concerns regarding the said judgment, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance, called Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The said Ordinance, thereafter, became an Act, namely, Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. Amendments were made by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, which read as under:

“An Act further to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-

sixth Year of the Re