Cheque dishonour jurisdiction lies where the cheque is returned unpaid; proviso conditions are only prerequisites for cognizance.

For complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction lies where the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank, because the offence is completed on dishonour and is governed by Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proviso to Section 138 is not part of the offence itself; it only sets conditions precedent for cognizance, namely timely presentation, statutory notice, and non-payment within the stipulated period. The place of presentation of the cheque or issuance of notice does not create jurisdiction. The broader multi-forum approach was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction lies only where the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank; and whether the requirements in the proviso to Section 138 are ingredients of the offence or only conditions precedent for cognizance.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between the commission of the offence and the taking of cognizance. The main enacting part of Section 138 creates the offence when a cheque is returned unpaid by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or excess over arrangement. The proviso prescribes steps that must be completed before prosecution can be launched, namely presentation of the cheque within time, issuance of demand notice, and failure to pay within the stipulated period. Those conditions are relevant to the accrual of cause of action under Section 142, but they do not form part of the act constituting the offence. Applying Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence is local to the place where dishonour occurs. The place of presentation of the cheque by the complainant or the place from which notice is issued does not confer territorial jurisdiction. The broader view previously taken to permit filing at multiple places was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory scheme and liable to cause harassment.

Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under Section 138 lies at the place where the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank, and the proviso conditions are only prerequisites for cognizance, not ingredients of the offence.

Final Conclusion: The law on venue for cheque-dishonour prosecutions was confined to the place of dishonour, and complaints filed elsewhere were to be returned or transferred in accordance with the stage of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offence is committed on dishonour by the drawee bank, while the proviso only postpones cognizance until its conditions are satisfied; therefore, territorial jurisdiction is governed by the place of dishonour under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---