Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 729 (PNJ)

Wockhardt Limited v. Atam Prakash Singh

2017-03-15

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 08.09.2016, by which the complaint instituted by the petitioner-company herein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, has been ordered to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on the ground that the complainants' account existed at the ICICI Bank, GT, Road Jalandhar and therefore, in terms of the amended provisions of the aforesaid Act, i.e. in terms of the amendment in Section 142 thereof, the complaint would lie only at a place where the complainant had its account. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the application filed leading to the aforesaid order, in which it has been stated that the petitioner herein, i.e. the applicant-complainant before the trial Court, had its bank account at the ICICI Bank Branch, 163 Backsbay Reclamation, Mumbai. 3. Hence, learned counsel submits, firstly, that a factual error has occurred in the order of the learned trial Court at Ludhiana, to the extent that it has mistakenly stated that the account was held at Jalandhar. 4. He next draws attention to the amendment made in Section 142 of the Act of 1881, wherein sub-section (2) has been added, which reads as follows:- "(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,— (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.— For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.". 5. 5. The contention of learned counsel is that as per the explanation given below the aforesaid provision, when a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee, the cheque would be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee holds/maintains its account and as such, no matter in whatever branch the cheque is presented, the jurisdiction would still lie at the place where the branch is located in which the complainant has its bank account. 6. Whereas prima facie this Court was of the opinion that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct, however, Mr. P.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd vs. Inderpal Singh 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 171, wherein it was held by their Lordships as follows:- “We are in complete agreement with the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied, that Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account). We are also satisfied, based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises.” 7. Mr. Jain further draws attention to the fact that in the complaint filed by the present petitioner (Annexure P-1), it has been stated in paragraph 5 thereof, “that the complainant presented the above said both the cheques through its above said C & F agents to its bank ICICI Bank, G.T., Road, Jalandhar for collection of amount.” 8. He further draws attention to what is stated in paragraph 8 as follows:- “That the above said cheques were presented through the bank of the Company, having its branch at G.T Road, Jalandhar.” 9. He further draws attention to what is stated in paragraph 8 as follows:- “That the above said cheques were presented through the bank of the Company, having its branch at G.T Road, Jalandhar.” 9. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner itself having stated in its complaint that its bank is the ICICI Bank, G.T. Road Jalandhar, the contention that the account is maintained in Mumbai is untenable. 10. That part of the contention of Mr. Jain has to be rejected, in view of the fact that all that is stated in paragraphs 5 and 8 is that the petitioner is banking with the ICICI Bank and presented the cheque at Jalandhar. It is nowhere specifically stated that the account maintained by the petitioner is either at the G.T. Road Branch, Jalandhar, or at Mumbai. Hence, no benefit can be drawn by the respondent from that fact. 11. As regards the judgment cited by Mr. Jain, in the opinion of this Court, the Supreme Court has categorically held that jurisdiction for initiating proceedings in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is at the place where the cheque is delivered for collection, through any branch of the bank in which the payee holds or maintains an account. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what is contained in the bracket, in the observation of the Supreme Court reproduced earlier, would actually amount to saying that the territorial jurisdiction is only at the branch where the account is held. 13. The aforesaid contention is rejected, in view of the fact that what is stated even within the brackets is that the account should be in a branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account. 14. Hence, what is intended by their Lordships, in the opinion of this Court, is to the effect that if the cheque is presented in any branch of a bank in which the payee holds an account, jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed, would be at the place where the cheque has been presented. 15. In view of the above, the cheque admittedly having been presented at the branch of ICICI Bank at G.T. Road, Jalandhar, I see no ground to entertain this petition, which is consequently dismissed.