M/s Mahaplasto Ltd & Anr. v. M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the argument being raised on behalf of the petitioner company is wholly misconceived. Before I proceed to deal with the case on merits, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, JT 1999(7) 558, wherein in regard to question of territorial jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 177 & 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code and components of offence under Section 138 of the Act, in relevant paras 14 to 16, it was held as under:- “14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said office: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 6 is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:- “Whether the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”

16.Thus, it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.” In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner company i.e., the drawer is based in Kolkata and the drawee bank is Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 7 also based in Kolkata whereas the payee-complainant company is based in Chandigarh and the collecting bank is also based in Chandigarh. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran's case (supra) it cannot be doubted that the complaint is maintainable at Chandigarh as the complainant company is based in Chandigarh, and the collecting bank is situated in Chandigarh and the notice was also issued from Chandigarh. Reliance of the petitioner company on the subsequent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics case (supra), is of no help to the petitioners, as the facts therein are distinguishable. In Harman Electronics case (supra), the appellant accused carried its business in Chandigarh and the cheque was issued at Chandigarh, the complainant had its Head Office at Delhi but had also a Branch Office at Chandigarh and the cheque was presented with the collecting bank at Chandigarh which was dis-honoured at Chandigarh. However, the complainant issued a notice upon appellant accused asking it to pay the amount from New Delhi and thereafter the respondent-complainant filed a complaint at New Delhi. In view of such facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere issuance of a notice from Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction to the Courts in Delhi. Therefore, the judgment in Harman's case (supra) does not support the plea being raised on behalf of the accused-petitioners in the present case. Crl.M.No.M-18541 of 2010 8 In view of the above, I find no ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC in the present petition. Dismissed. July 2,2010. (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE