Court Upholds Decision on Complaint, Remands for Further Proceedings

The court upheld the revisional court's decision on the complaint's maintainability and remanded for further proceedings. It directed the trial court to address the jurisdictional issue based on the location of the drawee bank and consider the validity of cheques issued beyond the printed limit during the trial. The revision was rejected concerning the complaint's validity but instructed the trial court to adhere to jurisdictional directives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
2. Timeliness of the legal notice issued under Section 138(b) of the NI Act.
3. Validity of cheques with a printed limit of Rs. 50,000 but issued for higher amounts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 138 of the NI Act:
The court examined the jurisdictional aspect under Section 142 of the NI Act, which was amended on 15.06.2015. The cheques in question were dishonored in 2014, thus the pre-amendment law applied. According to the law established in *Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra*, the jurisdiction lies where the drawee bank is situated, i.e., where the drawer maintains the account. In this case, the cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, New Delhi, thus the jurisdiction should be in New Delhi, not Aligarh. The court found that both lower courts erred by not returning the complaint to be filed in the proper jurisdiction.

2. Timeliness of the Legal Notice Issued under Section 138(b) of the NI Act:
Section 138(b) mandates that the payee must issue a notice within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonor of the cheque. The complainant claimed to have received the dishonor information on 20.09.2014 and issued the notice on 01.10.2014, which was within the stipulated 30 days. The court referenced *Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* to emphasize that the date of information receipt is crucial. The revisional court accepted the complainant's affidavit stating the receipt date as 20.09.2014, thus the notice was deemed timely. The court agreed with the revisional court that this matter should be decided during the trial with evidence from both parties.

3. Validity of Cheques with a Printed Limit of Rs. 50,000 but Issued for Higher Amounts:
The court noted that the cheques in question had a printed limit of Rs. 50,000, yet were issued for amounts exceeding this limit. This issue was not thoroughly addressed by the lower courts. The court directed that this matter should be examined during the trial to determine whether cheques with a higher denomination than the printed limit could be validly issued and payable.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the revisional court's decision regarding the maintainability of the complaint and the remand for further proceedings. However, it directed the trial court to address the jurisdictional issue and proceed accordingly. The trial court must also consider the validity of the cheques issued beyond the printed limit during the trial. The revision was rejected to the extent of maintaining the complaint's validity but directed the trial court to follow the jurisdictional directives.

---