HELCINO ALEIXO FERNANDES Vs. MILIND MADHUKAR BHENDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is one of jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are as follows. The Complainant is a businessman residing at Majorda within the jurisdiction of the J.M.F.C. at Margao in South Goa district where the complaints were filed. The allegation in the complaint was that the accused had collected a hand loan from the Complainant. There is no mention of the place where it was paid by the Complainant to the accused. The accused is a resident of Mapusa within the jurisdiction of J.M.F.C., Mapusa. Towards the repayment of the said loan the cheque/s in question were issued by the accused drawn on his account in HDFC Bank Ltd. at Panaji within the jurisdiction of J.M.F.C., Panaji in North Goa district. The Complainant deposited the said cheque/s into his account with Corporation Bank at Utorda, and, when sent for collection by the said Bank were returned by the drawee Bank with a remark that the funds were insufficient. The Complainant sent a demand notice dated 30-12-2005 to the address of the accused demanding payment within fifteen days. The notice was received by the accused but it was not complied with and so the complaint/s were filed. The Complainant averred in the complaint that the bounced cheque/s were sent for clearance by the Complainant through the Corporation Bank, Utorda, Goa, and as such the Court (J.M.F.C., Margao) had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose off the present complaint/s.

(3.) SHRI J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Accused submits that the impugned Judgment/s cannot be upheld because it is contrary to the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (supra) which has been followed or in any event not dissented from in Harman Electronics Private Limited and another v. National Panasonic India Private Limited 2009 (1) SCC 720) as well as in the case of Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed (2008 STPL (LE) 40806 SC). Learned Counsel further submits that both the cases decided by this Court in Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra (supra) as well as in Jinraj Paper Udyog v. Dinesh Associates and another (supra) are decided on the facts prevailing in those cases.