Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 188 (KAR)

POBATHI AGENCIES v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1991-03-07

M.M.MIRDHE

body1991
M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed u/s. 397 read with S. 401, Cr. P. C. by the petitioner against the order dated 18-2-1991 of the VI Additional C. M. M. Bangalore, in P. C. R. of M/s. Probathi Agencies v. G. N. Jayakumar. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THIS petition is admitted. ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I have heard this case on merits today. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. against one G. N. Jayakumar alleging that the said accused maintained his business transaction with the complainant and during the course of his business issued a cheque for Rs. 8,300/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ammasandra Branch, towards balance of' purchase of Hathi Pipes and the cheque was presented by the complainant for collection through his banker Vijaya Bank. N. R. Road. Bangalore. But it was not honoured and again it was re-presented as requested on 17-11-1990 and the cheque was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". It is also the case of the complainant that he issued a legal notice and in spite of that notice, the cheque amount was not paid and, therefore, he filed the complaint alleging that the said accused has committed the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" in short ). The learned Magistrate held that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of' the Court and directed the complainant to take back his complaint. He arrived at the conclusion that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the cheque in question was issued on the State Bank of Mysore at Ammasandra. ( 6 ) SECTION 138 of the Act reads as follows : -"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. He arrived at the conclusion that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the cheque in question was issued on the State Bank of Mysore at Ammasandra. ( 6 ) SECTION 138 of the Act reads as follows : -"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. , of funds in the accounts.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of' that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. " in order to ascertain as to which Court will have jurisdiction to enquire into a case of this type when a cheque is given by the accused at Bangalore and it is sent for collection by the complainant through its banker at Bangalore and is dishonoured at Ammasandra. The relevant provisions to be considered in this case are the provisions of Ss. 178 and 179, Cr. P. C. S. 178, Cr. P. C. reads as follows : "178 (a)When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) Where it 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. "section 179, Cr. P. C. reads as follows : - "when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. " the offence falling u/s. 138 of the Act will not be the only solitary act of dishonour by the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. Even giving of the cheque by the accused when he has not made arrangements for honouring of the cheque itself will be a part of the facts constituting the offence. S. 178 (b), Cr. P. C. lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another area, it may be enquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. U/ S. 179, Cr. P. C. when an act is an offence by reasons of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensured, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Giving the cheque by the accused to the complainant and giving the cheque for collection by the complainant to its Banker at Bangalore will also be the facts constituting the offence. Giving the cheque by the accused to the complainant and giving the cheque for collection by the complainant to its Banker at Bangalore will also be the facts constituting the offence. Therefore, in view of the provisions of S. 178 (b) and 179, Cr. P. C. the complaint can be filed in a Court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is not honoured. In view of this position of law, the learned Magistrate was wrong in coming to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the fact that the cheque was issued by the accused at Bangalore and the cheque was given for collection by the complainant to its Banker at Bangalore. These are the facts which took place within the jurisdiction of the Court. ( 7 ) HENCE, I make the following order : the petition is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside. The case is remitted back to the lower Court with a direction to it to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The complainant is directed to appear before the lower Court on 18-3-1991. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .