LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-128

JAGAN Vs. STATE

Decided On September 09, 2013
JAGAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the deposit of cheque by respondent no.2 in its Bank at Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) The law with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2013 7 Scale 753 in which the Supreme Court, after considering Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. and Harman Electronics Private Limited , held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection, has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of the principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 7 SCC 510. The Supreme Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Courts did not even arise for consideration in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., 2001 3 SCC 609, and therefore it does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran . The Supreme Court further observed that in Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited, 2009 1 SCC 720, the Court held that a notice of dishonor under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alone would not confer the jurisdiction to try the accused at the place of issuance of the notice. However, the Supreme Court did not deviate from the other principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran . In Nishant Aggarwal , the Supreme Court re-affirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection in terms of K. Bhaskaran. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

(3.) This case is squarely covered by Nishant Aggarwal as the cheque in question was deposited by the respondent no.2 in their account with Standard Chartered Bank, CMS, New Delhi and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has clear jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.