2012 (3) TMI 689 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Jurisdiction for Section 138 Offenses

The court upheld the magistrate's order directing the return of a complaint under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C, affirming that jurisdiction for trial under ... Jurisdiction to try offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Place of presentation versus place of drawee bank for jurisdiction - Service of statutory notice and completion of offence - Expression 'the bank' in proviso to Section 138 means drawee bank and not collecting bankJurisdiction to try offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Place of presentation versus place of drawee bank for jurisdiction - Service of statutory notice and completion of offence - Expression 'the bank' in proviso to Section 138 means drawee bank and not collecting bank - Validity of institution of complaint at the place where the cheque was presented for collection and notice issued, and whether the Magistrate erred in directing return of complaint under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the contention that presentation of the cheque for collection at Bangalore and issuance of notice at Bangalore confer jurisdiction on the Bangalore court. Reliance on Supreme Court authorities led to the legal posture that the term 'the bank' in the proviso to Section 138 refers to the drawee bank and not the collecting bank; accordingly, presentation to the drawee bank within the statutory period is material. Further, the Court noted the established principle that commission of the offence is completed only upon service of the statutory notice and failure to make payment within 15 days thereafter. The Court referred to the decision in Harman Electronics which emphasises that jurisdiction to try a criminal case is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that service (not merely issuance) of notice and the place where the offence completes are determinative; allowing venue based merely on presentation or multiple presentations/servings could lead to harassment through multiplicity of prosecutions. Considering these authorities and the reasoning that subsequent Supreme Court decisions govern over earlier conflicting rulings, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's submission that presentation for collection at Bangalore or issuance of notice there decisively confers jurisdiction, and therefore there was no ground to interfere with the Magistrate's order returning the complaint.Petition dismissed; impugned order directing return of the complaint under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C. upheld.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition and declined to interfere with the Magistrate's order returning the complaint, holding that mere presentation for collection or issuance of notice at a place does not necessarily confer jurisdiction where the law requires presentation to the drawee bank and service of notice for completion of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Issues involved: Challenge to order under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C regarding jurisdiction of court for trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Summary:The petition challenges a magistrate's order directing the return of a complaint under Section 201(1) Cr.P.C. The complainant invoked the court's jurisdiction in Bangalore based on the cheque presentation and notice issuance in Bangalore. The petitioner argues that the complaint can be instituted where any act related to the offense occurs, citing Supreme Court judgments and Cr.P.C. provisions. The trial procedure under Section 143 of the N.I. Act allows for summary trials by designated magistrates. The completion of an offense under Section 138 involves multiple acts, including drawing the cheque, presenting it, notice issuance, and non-payment by the drawer. The petitioner contends that since the cheque was presented and notice issued in Bangalore, the court there has jurisdiction.However, the Supreme Court precedent clarifies that the drawee bank, not the collecting bank, determines jurisdiction under Section 138. The court emphasizes the importance of service of notice for completing the offense and discourages multiple filings based on different locations of cheque presentation and notice service. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment must be followed. The petitioner's reliance on local judgments is dismissed, as the Supreme Court's interpretation prevails. A Madras High Court decision specifies the jurisdictions for trying Section 138 offenses based on cheque-related locations.In conclusion, the court finds no grounds to interfere with the magistrate's order and dismisses the petition challenging the jurisdiction for trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.