Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2099 (RAJ)

Sara Credit Co v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in revision whereby the Revisional Court upheld the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act holding that no cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the head office of the petitioner complainant is located at Sirohi, the respondent gave the cheque in issue to the complainant at Sirohi, the cheque was presented at the State Bank of India Branch at Sirohi and thus the CJ.M. Sirohi has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Learned Counsel thus submits that the cause of action arose to the petitioner at Sirohi, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was not at all justified in holding that the complaint was filed at a Court without jurisdiction and directing the same to be filed in another Court. Learned Counsel has referred to the para No. 5 of the complaint and submits that the cheque was presented by the complainant in its bank account at the State Bank of India, Sirohi and thus the Court at Sirohi has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He relies on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, reported in 2013 Cri.LJ. 3771 in support of his contention and prays that the impugned order should be quashed. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently opposes the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that merely because the cheque was presented at Sirohi that would not confer jurisdiction to the Court at Sirohi to try the case. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the complaint and have gone through the case law cited. 5. The legal issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Court to try the complaint in a case of Negotiable instruments Act is now no longer res Integra. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the complaint and have gone through the case law cited. 5. The legal issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Court to try the complaint in a case of Negotiable instruments Act is now no longer res Integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishant Aggarwal's case (supra) has left no scope for any argument while affirming the earlier views expressed in the cases of Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1168 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., reported in AIR 199 SC 3762 holding that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within a period of 15 days has the jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As a result of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that considering the specific allegation levelled in the complaint that the cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment in its bank account at the State Bank of India, Sirohi, the Court at Sirohi has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. 6. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned cannot be sustained as the same are contrary to law. 7. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The learned C.J.M., Sirohi is directed to restore the complaint at its original number. The parties shall appear before the learned C.J.M., Sirohi on or before 31.1.2014 where after the learned C.J.M. shall proceed in the case according to law.Petition allowed. *******