TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was triable at Indore or whether the competent territorial jurisdiction lay at Chandigarh.
Analysis: The petitions challenged the trial court's jurisdiction on the footing that the accused was resident at Chandigarh, the cheque was drawn on a bank at Chandigarh, the cheque was dishonoured there, and the statutory notice and other material acts forming part of the transaction were also connected with Chandigarh. Applying the territorial-jurisdiction principles recognised in relation to offences under Section 138, the Court accepted that the material acts giving rise to the complaint had taken place at Chandigarh and that the complainant had no sufficient basis to institute the case at Indore.
Conclusion: The complaint was held not maintainable at Indore for want of territorial jurisdiction and was directed to be returned for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the material components of the offence arise, and a complaint must be filed before the court within whose jurisdiction those acts substantially occurred.
TaxTMI 
