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: (i) Whether the statutory notice issued in support of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act satisfied the mandatory requirement of demanding payment within fifteen days. (ii) Whether the complaint was filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under the territorial jurisdiction scheme governing offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice issued in support of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act satisfied the mandatory requirement of demanding payment within fifteen days.
Analysis: Section 138(c) requires the drawer to be called upon to make payment within fifteen days of receipt of notice. The notice in question demanded payment within seven days instead of fifteen days. That short demand period did not comply with the statutory requirement and therefore the notice was held defective for the purpose of sustaining the prosecution.
Conclusion: The statutory notice was invalid and the prosecution could not be sustained on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under the territorial jurisdiction scheme governing offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: For an offence under Section 138, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's bank account. The cheque had been presented for collection through the bank branch in Chennai, but the complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Chengalpattu. On that legal framework, the chosen forum was not the proper court to take cognizance.
Conclusion: The complaint was filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution was quashed because the notice did not satisfy the statutory demand period and the complaint was instituted before an incompetent territorial forum.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory notice must demand payment within fifteen days, and territorial jurisdiction lies with the court determined by the bank branch where the cheque is delivered for collection.
TaxTMI 
