A.K.R. TRANSPORT Vs. KAMAKSHI SHIPPING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Criminal Revision separately filed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Since the questions of law and facts involved in both these petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. A.K.R. Transport filed two complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) with the averments that respondent M/s. Kamakshi Shipping had handed over two Post Dated Cheques (PDC) - one amounting to Rs.4,90,000/- in Cr.M.P.No.620/2015 and the other amounting to Rs.2,45,000/- in Cr.M.P.No.650/2015 drawn in favour of complainant/ petitioner herein in the month of February, 2014. The cheques were post dated of 10.04.2014. The cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, Visakhapatnam, who was the banker of M/s. Kamakshi Shipping, the respondent herein. Both the cheques were presented by the petitioner for encashment to his Banker on 10.04.2014 with S.B.I. Branch at Shivrinarayan, Chhattisgarh. The cheques having been sent for collection, it was reported by ICICI bank, Visakhapatnam that the said cheques were dishonoured. Having received the intimation of dishonour of cheques due to instruction of "stop payment" by the respondent, a legal notice was sent on 03.07.2014 but despite receipt of such notice on 09.07.2014, the payment was not made. Consequently on 20th August, 2014, a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881 before the Court of JMFC, Pamgarh. The said complaint having been filed, the Court of JMFC, Pamgarh at the time of registration of complaint passed an order dated 18.09.2014 and returned the said complaint with a finding that the cheques which were drawn were dishonoured at Visakhapatnam, consequently, the Court of JMFC, Pamgarh will not have jurisdiction.

(3.) The Court of JMFC followed the law laid down in Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra,2013 9 SCC 129 decided on 01.08.2014. The said order passed by the JMFC was subject of challenge by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. The Sessions Judge by its order dated 20.10.2014 dismissed the revision with an observation that the petitioner contended that while returning the complaint, two months' time should have been provided by the JMFC, Pamgarh, to file compliant before appropriate jurisdictional forum, but the JMFC has not given two months' time. However, the revisions so preferred were dismissed. Therefore, the said orders are subject of challenge before this High Court by way of these petitions.