Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. vs Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd.
2000 Latest Caselaw 973 Del

ORDER

Crl. M. (M) 800/99 & Crl. M. No. 1677/99

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that cause of action in this case having taken place in Kanpur, Court of Delhi have no jurisdiction. He further submits that because the cheque has been returned on the ground that the same is "out of date", no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29th September, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 1015/99, wherein the Supreme Court has while dealing with the facts stated therein returned its findings on the question of law, namely, as to which is the Court that will have jurisdiction to try the offence where various components are involved. The question has been answered as follows: "The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writ- ing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:

   "Where the offence consists of several acts done in different    local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having    jurisdiction over any of such local areas.   

   Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five    different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial    for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the    complainant can choose any one of these court having jurisdiction    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." 
  

2. In view of what has been held by the Supreme Court, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction. As regards his contentions that the cheque was returned as being "out of date", the same is also not correct, The memo returning the cheque indicates two grounds, namely, "insufficiency of funds" and "out of date". The factual position is that the cheque was presented within time but reached the drawee's bank late, this cannot be said to be "out of date".

3. In this view of the matter, Crl. M. (M) No. 800/99 is without merits.

4. Dismissed.