Territorial Jurisdiction under cheque dishonour law upheld where payee's bank account is maintained, with notice service presumptions applying.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction lay where the payee's account for collection was maintained, as Section 142(2)(a) and its Explanation treat delivery of the cheque through any branch as delivery at the account branch; the complaint was therefore maintainable before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. The challenge based on non-service of demand notice also failed because the notice was sent to the correct address and statutory presumptions of service arose once it was properly addressed and dispatched. The complaint and process orders were not liable to be quashed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed for alleged non-service of the demand notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended in 2015, confers jurisdiction on the Court within whose local limits the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account is situated, where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. The Explanation to that provision deems delivery at any branch of the bank to be delivery at the branch where the account is actually maintained. As the cheque amount was presented for credit to the complainant's account maintained at Thangal Bazar, Imphal, the place of presentation at Delhi did not determine jurisdiction. The amended statutory scheme and the governing Supreme Court decisions on territorial jurisdiction supported the complaint being filed where the payee's account was maintained.

Conclusion: The territorial jurisdiction plea failed and the complaint was maintainable before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed for alleged non-service of the demand notice.

Analysis: The notice was sent to the petitioner's correct address, including the address shown by him in the petition, and there was no material showing that it was returned unserved. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once notice is properly addressed and dispatched, statutory presumptions of service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The question whether notice was in fact served or deliberately avoided is ordinarily a matter of evidence and cannot justify quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plea based on non-service of notice was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint or the orders issuing process, as both territorial jurisdiction and the statutory notice requirement were sufficiently established for the complaint to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction lies where the payee's bank account for collection is maintained under Section 142(2)(a), and a properly addressed demand notice gives rise to statutory presumptions of service, so a quash petition cannot succeed on these grounds at the threshold.

---