Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction over Section 138 cases, emphasizes evidence timing.

The Supreme Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized that evidence commencement post-summoning and appearance of the accused determined the court's jurisdiction. As evidence had commenced after summoning and the accused's appearance, the Court directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. The judgment clarified the applicability of the law established in a previous case to matters initiated before that judgment.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Analysis:
1. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was to determine whether the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, had the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, where it was emphasized that only cases where evidence had commenced post the summoning and appearance of the accused as per Section 145(2) of the Act would continue in the same court. The judgment clarified that merely leading evidence at the pre-summoning stage would not exclude the applicability of the ruling.

3. Upon examining the records and orders in the present case, the Court noted that the appellant had filed an affidavit at the pre-summoning stage, followed by the issuance of summons to the accused. Subsequently, the accused was examined under Section 251 of the CrPC, and evidence proceedings continued over several adjournments for cross-examination.

4. The Court concluded that evidence had commenced in accordance with Section 145(2) of the Act, as clarified in the Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case. Therefore, the Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and directed the Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

5. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of the timing of evidence commencement post-summoning and appearance of the accused in determining the jurisdiction of the court to hear cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ruling provided clarity on the applicability of the law laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case to cases initiated before the pronouncement of that judgment.

---