DUNE LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Special leave granted. The appellant a complaint against Shri Gulshan Kumar, proprietor of M/s. A. P. Associates-respondent No. 2 and it was registered as complaint case No. 105/1 of 1990 in the Court of Shri Gupta, M. M. New Delhi. It is alleged in the complaint that respondent No. 2 issued cheques and they bounced and, therefore, an offence u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out. The M. M. passed an order on 6-2.91 holding that the court at place where cheque is drawn has the jurisdiction, simply because the same was deposited for collection in Delhi cannot confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts and accordingly the complaint was returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper court. Questioning the same, a revision was filed by the appellant before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence, the appeal.

(2.) FROM the above facts, it may be seen that the cheques were drawn on the bank at Chilbera branch, Noida, Ghaziabad. Therefore, according to the M.M. the court at Ghaziabad has jurisdiction. However, the fact remains that the cheques were deposited for collection at Delhi and since they get bounced, it cannot be said that Delhi court has no jurisdiction to try the case u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sec. 179 Cr. P.C. lays down- "when an act is a offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued". The language of the Section is clear and in view of the fact that the consequence have ensued at Delhi within the jurisdiction of of Delhi M.M., the court has jurisdiction to try the case. In the result, order of the M.M. dated 6.2.91 is quashed and the appeal is allowed. M.M. shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.