M. VASANTH Vs. KANORIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This Petition is filed by the Petitioner -accused before the trial Court contending that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Ist Additional J.M.F.C., Bagalkot, had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short).

(2.) ACCORDING to the Respondent -complainant for the supply of cement at Uppinangadi to the Petitioner herein he became due some amount and ultimately issued a cheque for Rs. 1,40,585 -00 ps. dated 20.11.1998 bearing No. 013245 to the Respondent. Cement was supplied by the complainant, for Bagalkot by dispatching to Uppinangadi by a truck to the firm as alleged in the complaint. The complainant presented the said cheque for payment through Syndicate Bank, Mangalore, where it had an account. When it was sent for clearance, it was returned by Syndicate Bank, Uppinangadi with endorsement that funds insufficient. Then after issuing a mandatory notice a complaint came to be filed at Bagalkot. The learned Judge, after perusing the sworn statement and other documents took cognizance of the offence had issued summons to the Petitioner herein which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , all these acts in the present case have either occurred at Uppinangadi or Mangalore. But the complaint is filed in the Court at Bagalkot. No doubt, the J.M.F.C. who took cognizance at Bagalkot do not lack inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offence. If it was a situation where one of the five acts narrated above did happen within the local limits or area in which the Court is situated he would have had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Now there is lack of territorial jurisdiction only. One has to see what happens in such a situation. Similar situation arose in a matter pertaining to Kerala which came to be disposed of by their Lordships on 1.4.1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 279/1994 (Itty Mathew v. Ramani) reported in Judgment on dishonour of cheques. Paras -14 and 15 are relevant which read as under: