Territorial jurisdiction in ni 138

The Hon'ble Court has stated that, all pending cases under sec 138 must be returned back to the complainants for filing in the proper Court EXCEPT those cases where post summoning and appearance of the accused and recording of evidence has commenced.

DEAR MR ROHAN PRADHAN

1) SUMMON STAGE OK SIR, IF ORAL STATMENT GIVEN, EVIDENCE NOT STARTED NEXT SEP 2014 STARTED... IS IT POSSIBLE TO TRANSFER, WHETHER ACCUSSED HAS TO FILE ANY PETION. OR COMPLANTANT HAS TO FILE PETTION OR COURT WILL TRANSFER BY AGAINST SC JUDGEMENT DATED 01/08/2014

Please read the judgement carefully it has given all the answers.

 

In short only PAYEE BANK   branch has jurisdiction , that it the place where the branch of the bank is located from which the complaint cheque was issued and accused has to fight for it but it will be upheld.

Laxminarayan has just missed it himself..

 

It is the Drawee Bank. (Accused Bank)

 

For new cases:

1. The court where branch of accused is situated, where accused has the Bank Account of the said cheque. This address is generally written on all the cheques.

 

For Old cases:

1. If the cross examination of prosecution witness not started, then accused does not have to do anything, trial court will return the complaint on its own to complainant. There is no harm in drawing the attention of magistrate.

2. If the cross examination has started, then it will be a deemed transfer, that means it will continue.

There is nothing to fight, nothing to argue, It is crystal clear and binding order of SC on all trial magistrates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

jurisdiction as per Mumbai high court judgement. Original chq bearing address in chennai. But at par chq on behalf of chennai branch some of their branch at bangalore. Returning. The chq. Now as per SC rule they transfer or as per Mumbai Hc order it will continue at same court.

jurisdiction as per Mumbai high court judgement. Original chq bearing address in chennai. But at par chq on behalf of chennai branch some of their branch at bangalore. Returning. The chq. Now as per SC rule they transfer or as per Mumbai Hc order it will continue at same court.

Kaya,

 

No answer??

 

Substantial issue got created by Mumabi HC, which has made the SC order almost nugatory. It has now become kind of discretion of magistrate to go either way, which is very bad, because criminal law must be definitive. So only SC can come to rescue, and earlier they come better it is.

 

The general legal opinion is that SC meant it to be the branch of drawer, but SC used the clearing place, which in the era of CBS (multi city cheques and common clearing house) need not be the drawer branch. The intent of SC was clear, there are multiple examples in the order, but Mumbai HC has convoluted the same.

 

 

 

Respected R.Trivedi sir 1) Agreed your points sir. Tks. But My doubt SC has more power then HC. SC court may not aware the Technical Issue of cBs system and amendment of validity period because the subject of case may very old. That time not inforce of present NI act n CBS system. Validity mentioned in SC judgement 6 months n 3 months. Another about at par nothing mentioned. However I understand clear intention of SC judgement at issuing bank place. All of the cheque hvg at par now a days. But all chq has been made out with own branch native address. Also on behalf of Native branch original scaned copy of chq only send to at bar branch for collection by receiver bank. IF receiver need any clarification or any summon for further details I understand only to Chq native branch. Then how bby Hc judgement will implicating against SC judgement. Also is it necessary to react bby Hc order by other Hc of in india. Please clarify ur valid opinion as per legal procedures. Tku

Accused Bank "A" is an employer having business across the country and operating 

different type of Bank accounts in different banks.  "A" issued the cheques drawn on 

a Bank situated at Bangalore.  The Payee Bank "B" on receipt of the Cheques presented

to his bank at Mumbai.  The Payee Bank is the native of far away Dist. of West Bengal,

from this Bank "B" is operating the bank accounts.  The "B" received the dishonoured (bounced)

cheques   amounting to more than 30 lacs.  Where would be the Territorial jurisdiction under NI Act 

as well  as latest  SC judgment. 

T. R. Ganesan

Territorial jurisdiction _ Supreme Court in the case of Deshrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014 (8) LJSOFT (SC) 1) made clear that cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond, shall not be affected by the issue of jurisdiction _ Section 145(2) refers to the Court summoning and examining any person who has given evidence on affidavit _ Mere filing of an affidavit as contemplated u/s 145(1) cannot be construed as having reached the stage contemplated u/s 145(2). (See 2014 (10) LJSOFT 11)

(For full text visit www.ljsoft.co.in (FREE to register Free to use)