Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

2287 OF 2009

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod

…..Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

…..Respondents

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2077 of 2009];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2112 of 2009];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2117 of 2009];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1596-1600 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1308-1312 of 2009];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1601 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3762 of 2012];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3943 of 2012];

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1603 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3944 of 2012]; AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1604 OF 2014

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.59 of 2013].

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. These

Appeals raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance

pertaining to Court’s territorial jurisdiction concerning

criminal complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).

This is amply adumbrated by the Orders dated

3.11.2009 in I.A.No.1 in CC 15974/2009 of the three-

Judge Bench presided over by the then Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam which SLP is also

concerned with the interpretation of Section 138 of the

NI Act, and wherein the Bench after issuing notice on the

petition directed that it be posted before the three-Judge

Bench.

PRECEDENTS

2.

The earliest and the most often quoted decision

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

of this Court relevant to the present conundrum is K.

Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510

wherein a two-Judge Bench has, inter alia, interpreted

Section 138 of the NI Act to indicate that, “the offence under

Section 138 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.” The

provisions of Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) have also been dealt with

in detail. Furthermore, Bhaskaran in terms draws a

distinction between ‘giving of notice’ and ‘receiving of

notice’. This is for the reason that clause (b) of proviso to

Section 138 of the NI Act postulates a demand being made

by the payee or the holder in due course of the dishonoured

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer thereof.

While doing so, the question of the receipt of the notice has

also been cogitated upon.

3.

The issuance and the receipt of the notice is

significant because in a subsequent judgment of a

Coordinate Bench, namely, Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v.

National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720

emphasis has been laid on the receipt of the notice, inter

alia, holding that the cause of action cannot arise by any act

of omission or commission on the part of the ‘accused’,

which on a holistic reading has to be read as ‘complainant’.

It appears that Harman transacted business out of

Chandigarh only, where the Complainant also maintained an

office, although its Head Office was in Delhi. Harman issued

the cheque to the Complainant at Chandigarh; Harman had

its bank account in Chandigarh alone. It is unclear where the

Complainant presented the cheque for encashment but it

issued the Section