TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 'Act' passed subsequently. 2. Submissions have been made on behalf of either side. 3. A bare perusal of the complaints that were filed by the petitioner herein indicates that they were all instituted under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the year 2012 and are against AEZ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the respondent no.1, its Managing Director, Shri Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, its Director, Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta and its Authorized Signatory Shri Kailash Gupta arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 4 respectively for dishonour of cheques issued on behalf of the respondent no.1 allegedly by the respondent nos.2 to 4 all in favour of the complainant arrayed as the petitioner herein vide cheque bearing no.556029 dated 10.01.2012 for a sum of Rs. 1,24,99,995/-, for dishonour of cheque bearing No.556035 dated 10.01.2012 for a sum of Rs. 13,60,00,000/- and dishonour of cheque bearing No.556028 dated 10.10.2011 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- as mentioned in the respective complaints. 4. As per averments made in each of the complaints, the said cheques were presented for encashment at New Delhi and were returned unpaid at New Delhi and the intimation of the return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1), and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) of section 142 before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.", the learned trial Court observed to the effect that in view of the said referred provisions, the complaint was required to be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under Sub-section (2) of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder In due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank In which the payee or holder In due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.". 4. In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely;- "142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before It, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) of section 142 as If that sub-section had been in force at all material times." In judgment "M/s Escorts Ltd. v. Rama Mukherjee - 2013 (3) DCR 1 Supreme Court of India", it has been observed that:- "5. It Is apparent, that the conclusion drawn. by the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act." 10. Reference was also made by the petitioner to the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720, which clarified the same and the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.2287/2009) which varied the same wherein it had been laid down that the Court where the account of the accused i.e. of the drawer was maintained, would be the Court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 11. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 of June, 2015 however, conferred the exclusive jurisdiction at the place where the complainant maintains its account and explanation to Section 142 (2) thereof made it expressly clear that where a cheque was delivered for collection to any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, the cheque would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse maintains the account, is the place where the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be enquired into and tried exclusively by the user of the word 'only'. 15. Section 142 A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 inserted on 15.06.2015 reads to the effect: "Validation for transfer of pending cases- 142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under subsection (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace of territorial jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) and that thus the territorial jurisdiction is to be determined by the place where the drawee maintains an account, which is the place where the territorial jurisdiction arises in terms of Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that the provisions of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 have to give way to the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of the non obstante clause sub-section (1) of Section 142 A as laid down vide para 11 of the said verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per observations in para 13 of the said verdict, the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (Ordinance 06/2015). As per Section 142 A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, all cases transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under Sub-Section (2) of Section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be deemed to have been transferred under the said Ordinance, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material in times and thus, it was observed vide para 13 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bridgstone (Supra) that the Section 142....