Revival of cheque dishonour complaints after jurisdiction amendment upheld, with earlier cognizance and limitation objections rejected.

Section 138 complaints earlier returned for want of territorial jurisdiction could be revived and re-registered after the 2015 amendments, because Section 142A, the amended jurisdiction scheme in Section 142, and the savings clause were treated as validating continuation of such proceedings. The prior cognizance, which had not been challenged when taken and was followed by appearance and bail, remained effective despite the return and re-presentation of the complaints, so the limitation objection also failed. A warrant-based summons order was not shown to be illegal where the accused had earlier failed to appear despite opportunity, though a short further chance to appear and furnish bail bonds was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that were earlier returned for want of territorial jurisdiction could be revived and re-registered in the same court after the 2015 amendment; (ii) whether the challenge to the original cognizance and the plea of limitation could succeed; (iii) whether the order directing the accused to be summoned through warrant of arrest required interference.

Issue (i): Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that were earlier returned for want of territorial jurisdiction could be revived and re-registered in the same court after the 2015 amendment.

Analysis: The amendment inserting Section 142A, along with the amended jurisdictional scheme in Section 142 and the savings clause, was treated as having ratified earlier proceedings affected by the territorial-jurisdiction ruling. The complaints had originally been filed in the court where the cheques were presented for collection, and the earlier return of the complaints was only a transitional consequence of the intervening legal position. Once liberty had been granted to seek revival, the complainants were entitled to resubmit the original complaints for continuation before the same court.

Conclusion: The revival and re-registration of the complaints were valid and the objection of lack of jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the original cognizance and the plea of limitation could succeed.

Analysis: The initial cognizance order had been passed before the complaints were returned and had not been challenged by the accused, who had already entered appearance and obtained bail. The later return and resubmission of the complaints did not undo the earlier valid steps in the proceedings because the amendment preserved actions already taken under the Act. The limitation objection also did not survive in view of the liberty earlier granted and the continuation of the same complaints on re-presentation.

Conclusion: The challenge to cognizance and the limitation objection were rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the order directing the accused to be summoned through warrant of arrest required interference.

Analysis: The accused had appeared through counsel, sought exemption from personal appearance, and thereafter failed to attend despite opportunity. The warrant order was therefore not shown to be illegal, though the Court considered it appropriate to afford one further opportunity to appear and furnish bail bonds.

Conclusion: The warrant order was not interfered with, but the accused were granted a short opportunity to appear and furnish bail bonds.

Final Conclusion: The complaints were permitted to proceed in the trial court, the accused's challenge was declined, and the trial court was directed to continue the proceedings expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: The 2015 amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, together with its savings clause, validated the continuation of complaints that had earlier been returned because of the then-prevailing territorial-jurisdiction position, and prior unchallenged cognizance could not be assailed on that basis after revival of the complaints.

---