PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUT Vs. SUGUNA PAULTY FIRM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party. This is an application under Section 407 cr. P. C. wherein the petitioner seeks for an order to transfer I. C. C. No. 581 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , cuttack to the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , bhadrak. According to the petitioner, the said complaint case has been filed under section 138 of the N. I. Act. Certain cheques were issued by the petitioner in favour of opposite party as security being drawn on uco Bank, Bhadrak. The entire transaction took place in Bhadrak Town. As a matter fact, the cheques were presented by the complainant for encashment at Bhadrak. However, just because the lawyer's notice was issued from Cuttack, the above complaint case has been filed at Cuttack and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate at Cuttack has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 177 Cr. P. C. which provides that every offence shall be ordinarily enquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party relying upon the decision in the case of Smt. Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed submits that the Supreme Court has laid down in the aforesaid decision that the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act can be completed on fulfilment of various acts, such as, drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque, returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Hence, according to him, commission of any of the above acts within the territorial jurisdiction of any court, empowers that Court to try the case. As the notice in the present case was issued from Cuttack, the Court below at Cuttack has jurisdiction to try the case and there is no reason for transferring the case to bhadrak.

(3.) IN the case of Smt. Shamshad Begum (supra), the Supreme Court was testing the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where a prayer was made to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the magistrate. The case was one under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. A petition was filed before the High Court on the ground that the mangalore Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, as it was submitted that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bangalore and the parties live in mangalore and the cheque was returned from the bank at Bangalore and, therefore, the Bangalore Court has jurisdiction to try the case. The contrary submission made by the opposite party in the said case was that before issuing notice to the appellant, he shifted his residence to Mangalore and a reply to the said notice was sent by the appellant from Mangalore. Hence, as one of the components of the said offence, i. e. , the notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount was sent from Mangalore, the Court at mangalore had jurisdiction to try the case. The Supreme Court relying upon the law laid down in the case of K. Bhaskaran sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another dismissed the said appeal.