DHARAM CHAND Vs. INDERJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order recorded by the learned JMIC Dalhousie, upon, complaint No. 11/14 of 2014, whereby the aforesaid complaint preferred before it, was returned to be presented, to the appropriate Court, holding the apposite jurisdiction to try it. The aforesaid order, is made, on anvil of a verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor vs. State of Maharastra & another. However, subsequent thereto, on 29.12.2015, an amendment, in the hereinafter extracted, manner, has occurred in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, relevant part whereof stand extracted hereinafter:

(2.) A close reading, of, the attractable hereat provisions, discloses, that the appropriate Court, holding the jurisdiction, to, try the apposite complaint, arising from dishonor of negotiable instrument IS (i) wherewithin whose local limits, of jurisdiction, stand(s) located, the bank, where the payee or holder in due course, maintains his account AND wherebefore the dishonoured negotiable instrument is presented, for collection(s) in his account. Consequently, bearing in mind the afore-extracted amendment(s) carried vis-à-vis Section 142, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act, (ii) thereupon with presentation, of, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being, made by the payee, at State Bank of India, Branch Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., whereat also he maintains his account(s), (ii) AND whereat after collection, from, the account(s) of the complainant maintained at a Bank located at Jammu, moneys would hence pour, (iii) thereupon with the aforesaid bank wherein the payee maintains his account(s) being situated, within, the local limits of the jurisdiction, of, Court located at Dalhousie, (iv) thereupon jurisdiction, was statutorily fastened in the aforesaid Court, for trying the complaint. In aftermath it was, not, appropriate for the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, to rely upon the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case supra, (v) given its verdict not holding prevalence thereat, (vi) rather given prevalence thereat, of, the apposite amended provisions.

(3.) In view, of, a mandate recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2015, titled M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, mandate whereof, is borne in the apposite paragraph occurring at Sr. No. 14, para whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:-