Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 613 (AP)

Nallamilli Themini Reddy v. Bunga Vijaya Kumari

2008-08-04

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2008
ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed against the order, dated 27-06-2008 in an unnumbered C.C.S.R.No.7 of 2008, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. When the complainant presented the complaint, the lower Court returned the same on the ground that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to present the same before proper Court. The complainant is a resident of Ramachandrapuram. He presented the cheque in Bank of Baroda, Ramachandrapuram for collection, but the same was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". He issued a notice through an Advocate at Kakinada and the same was received by the Accused, therefore, the complainant filed the case at Kakinada. The lower Court returned the complaint by observing that the complainant did not mention in the notice that he is temporarily residing at Kakinada. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision reported in K. BHASKARAN v. SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN, to the effect that the complaint can also be filed from the place where the notice was issued. Though the lower Court did not dispute the said proposition, gave the above finding and returned the complaint. In K. BHASKARAN's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that: "The offence under S. 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 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. It is not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under S.138 of the Act. It is not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under S.138 of the Act. Referring S.178 (d) of Code it is clear that if the five different acts were done in five different localities any of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can be come 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 expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under S.138 of the Act." 4. In the light of the above judgment, the place of giving statutory notice to the Accused demanding payment of the cheque amount is also a place where the cause of action arises and the complaint can be filed before the Court having jurisdiction over the place of issuing notice. In the light of the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Revise Case. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order, dated 27- 06-2008 passed by the lower Court is set aside. The lower Court is directed to take the complaint on file if it is otherwise in order and proceed further according to law.