TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 138 of NI Act. Crl. M.C. No. 4106/2014 pertains to cheque Nos.014295 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) , 014229 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight lakhs) and 018112 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees One crore) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022; Crl. M.C. No. 4107/2014 relates to cheque No. 014226, dated 17.10.2013 for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa- 751022; Crl. M.C. No. 4108/2014 pertains to cheque Nos.018110 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) , 018111 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupee One crore) and 014296 dated 17.10.2013 for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One crore forty lakhs) all drawn on IDBI Bank, Bhubaneswar Orissa-751022 and all cheques are payable at par at all IDBI Bank branches. 4. In order to have better understanding of facts of the cases, it would be appropriate to refer to facts of one case. The facts are being extracted from Crl. M.C. No. 4106/2014. The complainant is a private Ltd. company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Vikas Kumar Tyagi is the person-in-charge/M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he cheque in question was presented for its encashment irrespective of the fact that such branch was not the home branch of the drawee bank where the accused was having the bank account in the said bank. In other words, the main thrust of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner/ complainant is that the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act can be instituted even at that branch of a bank wherein the cheques in question were deposited and got dishonoured, in addition to the home branch of the drawee bank wherein the accused has bank account. When the accused issued such a cheque 'payable at par' there was an express authority to the complainant under the aforesaid condition to present the cheque in any branch of the concerned Bank. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/ accused urged that territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try cases filed under Section 138 of NI Act, would lie with Courts within whose jurisdiction the home branch of the drawee bank in which the accused has a bank account from which cheques in question have been issued, is situated and at no other place. In support of their submission, they have placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble at specified place.- A promissory note or bill of exchange made, drawn or accepted payable at a specified place must, in order to charge the maker or drawer thereof, be presented for payment at that place. 70. Presentment where no exclusive place specified.- A promissory note or bill of exchange, not made payable as mentioned in sections 68 and 69, must be presented for payment at the place of business (if any) , or at the usual residence, of the maker, drawee or acceptor thereof, as the case may be." 12. The issue of territorial jurisdiction of Court to try the offence under Section 138 of NI Act has been set at rest by the decision of three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated case Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed as under:- "21. The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by JMFC at that place however, can be taken onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....place where the cheque stands dishonoured. To obviate and eradicate any legal complications, the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by us from the court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the court where it is presently pending. All other complaints (obviously including those where the respondent-accused has not been properly served) shall be returned to the complainant for filing in the proper court, in consonance with our exposition of the law. If such complaints are filed/refiled within thirty days of their return, they shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time-barred." (emphasis supplied) 13. While agreeing with the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen, it has been further held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur in the aforesaid judgment as under:- "58. To sum up: 58.1. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the Magistracy of this country. The number of such cases as of October 2008 were estimated to be more than 38 lakhs by the Law Commission of India in its 213th Report. The result is that cases involving dishonour of cheque are in all major cities choking the criminal justice system at the Magistrate's level. Courts in the four metropolitan cities and other commercially important centres are particularly burdened as the filing of such cases is in very large numbers. More than five lakh such cases were pending in criminal courts in Delhi alone as of 1-6-2008. The position is no different in other cities where large number of complaints are filed under Section 138 not necessarily because the offence is committed in such cities but because multinational and other companies and commercial entities and agencies choose these places for filing the complaints for no better reason than the fact that notices demanding payment of cheque amounts were issued from such cities or the cheques were deposited for collection in their banks in those cities. Reliance is often placed on Bhaskaran case [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] to justify in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the drawee bank is situated. 15. No doubt, a cheque which is made 'payable at par'/ 'multi-city' cheque can be presented at any of the branches of bank, which has been nominated as CBS branch of the drawee bank in terms of the recent guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular dated 10.08.2012 (Annexure P-5 with the petition) . However, it is to be noticed that the said guidelines had been issued by Reserve Bank of India with altogether different object. The said object is to facilitate speedy encashment of amount against cheques more particularly in cases of out stationed cheques. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past, there used to be considerable delay in collection of out- stationed cheques which led to number of complaints from customers and members of public at large. The average time consumed in the out-stationed cheque used to be somewhere between seven days to one month. In order to improve the service with regard to collection of out-stationed cheques, facility of cheques which are 'payable at par'/ 'multi-city cheques' was introduced in the banking system. In order to regulate the same, Reserve Bank of ....