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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be transferred under the transfer jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding the territorial scheme in Section 142(2) of that Act, on considerations of convenience, hardship, and the ends of justice. (ii) Whether the facts of the case justified transfer of the pending complaints from Chandigarh to Hyderabad.
Issue (i): Whether a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be transferred under the transfer jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding the territorial scheme in Section 142(2) of that Act, on considerations of convenience, hardship, and the ends of justice.
Analysis: The statutory scheme after the 2015 amendment fixes territorial jurisdiction for cheque dishonour complaints under Section 142(2), while Section 142A validates the transfer-and-jurisdiction regime. Even so, the transfer power under the criminal procedure law remains intact where transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. The relevant test is not confined to physical inconvenience alone. It includes comparative hardship to the accused, complainant, and witnesses, and the broader impact on fair-trial rights. In prosecutions under Section 138, the imbalance created by statutory presumptions and evidentiary advantages to the complainant can make venue-related hardship especially significant where the accused is a small individual facing a powerful institutional complainant.
Conclusion: Yes. The territorial scheme in Section 142(2) does not exclude transfer jurisdiction, and comparative inconvenience may justify transfer when the ends of justice so require.
Issue (ii): Whether the facts of the case justified transfer of the pending complaints from Chandigarh to Hyderabad.
Analysis: The transactions arose in Andhra Pradesh, the accused were located there, relevant documents and witnesses were available there, and related proceedings concerning the same transaction were already pending at Hyderabad and before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant bank's choice of Chandigarh as the collection venue could not override the substantial hardship caused to the petitioners, who would otherwise have to defend themselves at a distant forum in a different language. The relative convenience of the bank did not outweigh the petitioners' fair-trial concerns and practical inability to secure effective legal assistance at Chandigarh. However, instead of sending the matter to Adoni, the proceedings were directed to be placed at Hyderabad because connected DRT proceedings arising from the same transaction were already pending there.
Conclusion: Yes, but only partly. Transfer was warranted, and Hyderabad was chosen as the transferee forum.
Final Conclusion: The transfer request succeeded in substance, and the complaints were moved to a more convenient forum aligned with the connected proceedings, while the issue was also placed before a larger bench for definitive consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: In transfer petitions involving Section 138 prosecutions, the court may order transfer where the comparative inconvenience, hardship, and fair-trial impact on an unequal accused outweigh the complainant's forum preference, and the territorial scheme under Section 142(2) does not bar such transfer in the ends of justice.
TaxTMI 
