2003 (1) KLT SN 66 (C.No. 94) Guj.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela
Chemox Laboratories Ltd. v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Co. Ltd.
M.C.A. No.3934 of 1999
19.9.2002
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.178(d) -- Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 &141 - Question of territorial jurisdiction of court in prosecution for bouncing of cheque - Proceedings can be filed at any of the locations where any one of five acts as described by Supreme Court had taken place - It is for the complainant to choose the court at any of the permissible locations.
The offence under S.138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (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. 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 S. 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 expensive,it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under S.138 of the Act.
