HAMOSONS APPARELS PVT LTD Vs. SIVAN TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The accused in C.C. 164 of 1991 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, have filed this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.

(2.) The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioners, arraying them as accused 1 to 3. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is manufacturing textile goods and supplying it to the first accused of which accused 2 and 3 are Directors. During the course of the dealings; the accused issued two post, dated cheques on 18.10.1990 for Rupees Five Lakhs and Rs. 2,57,598/- respectively dated 19.10.1990 and 29.10.1990 respectively. The complainant presented the cheques for collection through Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Mount Road, Madras. They were returned with an endorsement exceeds arrangement. Matter being intimated about the dishonour of the cheques, accused 2 and 3 requested the complainant to represent the two cheques during last week of March and promised that the same would be honoured. The complainant represented the cheques on 28.3.1990. They were again returned with the endorsement exceeds arrangement on 2.4.1991. The complainant received the intimation on .3.4.1991. The complainant issued notice on 13.4 .199 1 calling upon the accused to make the payment due on the dishonoured cheques within 15 days of the receipt of notice. The accused received the notice on 15.4.1991. But they have not paid the amount within 15 days. Hence the complaint.

(3.) Mr. Amruddin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would state that the cheques were issued at Madras and they were presented for collection in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Mount Road, Madras and they were dishonoured and the offence was committed only at Madras and the court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode has got no jurisdiction to try the case. Per contra, Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that under section 178 Criminal Procedure Code, if an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of the said local areas and an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act consists of various act and mere dishonour is not itself an offence and the cause of action for the offence arises only after the expiry of 15 days, after service of notice on the accused calling upon him to pay the amount due under the dishonoured cheques and as such every requisite prior to the cause of action arises put together constitute an offence and the issued of statutory notice was at Erode and hence the court at Erode has got jurisdiction to try the case.