TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the petitioners/accused has submitted that the petitioners are doing a business in Textiles in the name and style of "M/s. Shankar Selection (P) Ltd" in Calcutta, and it was a family business. The petitioners availed cash and credit facility from the respondent bank in the year 2014. At the time of availing the loan, the petitioners have executed various documents and also issued two blank cheques. He further submitted that as there were some problems in the family, the family businesses were partitioned and that the petitioners' brother loan was declared as 'NPA'. Consequent to that the petitioners' loan accounts was also declared as 'NPA' account and their account was frozen in the year 2015. 4. He further submitted that the said cheques were given only for security purpose and there is no liability for the said cheques. The petitioners were shocked to receive a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dated 03.03.2017 from the respondent bank, as if two cheques of Kotak Mahindra Bank, (the respondent bank), were issued to the respondent bank and the same were presented for collection in the frozen account by the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be amended and also, Section 142-A was inserted in the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that subsequently the said Ordinance was replaced by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. He further submitted that the Section 142 (2) (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 amended through the Negotiable Instruments Act, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the court, where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated. 8. He further submitted that as per the Explanation to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee on 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. He further submitted that the aforesaid Ordinance came up for consideration before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndment) Second Ordinance 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account). We are also satisfied, based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises. 13. Since cheque No. 1950, in the sum of Rs. 26,958, drawn on the Union Bank of India Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2006, was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant on 04.08.2006, we are of the view that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the promulgation of the Negotiable In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to which the contention raised on behalf of petitioner/complainant cannot be sustained. The cheque amount is supposed to be paid from the account of accused/respondents maintained at home branch of drawee bank. It is merely as a result of computerization of all the branches of bank, facility has been provided for encashment of cheques payable at par at any branch irrespective of the fact that account holder was not having bank account in the branch where the cheque is presented. Merely because the cheques has been presented at non-home branch of drawee bank, it does not in any manner, become the drawee bank for the obvious reason that before encashing the cheques payable at par, the non-home branch is still required to verify from home branch of the drawee branch as to whether or not there was any impediment in encashment of the cheque drawn at home branch. Even otherwise, in the event of encashment, the amount of cheque would be required to be debited in the account of the accused maintained at home branch as the amount was only payable by the home branch of drawee bank. Therefore, the presentation of cheque at non-home branch of drawee bank being the cheque which is payable at p....