Territorial Jurisdiction in Case of Cheque Dishonour

Territorial Jurisdiction in Case of Cheque Dishonour

Section 138 - Place of Filing Complaint - Applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-  Complainant as well as the accused reside within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji - Cheque were given by the accused to the Complainant drawn on Bank of Goa, Ltd., Santa Cruz Branch, which is also situated within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji - Cheques were crossed and the Complainant deposited the same for payment in his account with State Bank of India, at Margao but were returned dishonoured by the Bank of the accused with the endorsement that the funds were insufficient - Complainant sent a notice dated 1/12/2004 through his Advocate, having his office at Margao within jurisdiction of Magistrate, Margao but at the same time making it clear that it was being sent on behalf of the Complainant who was the resident of Ribander, within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Panaji - It was argued that JMFC, Margao before whom the Complainant-Respondent No.1 had filed the said case had no jurisdiction to entertain the same - JMFC, Margao noted that the subject cheques were account payee cheques and therefore they were intended to be paid at the place where the accused had an account and since the complainant had presented the subject cheques for payment in the State Bank of India, Margao Branch, the JMFC, Margao had jurisdiction to try the case - JMFC, Margao also noted that the demand notice was issued from Margao - It was seen that the notice did not show as to where the payment was required to me made - Held, since the subject cheques were issued by the accused and were payable at the Bank within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Panaji, it is the JMFC, Panaji who would have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 - Though the Complainant may have accounts at several places, it does not follow that the Complainant could file complaint at the place where he had an account because jurisdiction would have to be gathered from the place where money was intended to be paid. - Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In other words the offence is to be tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it is committed - The word “ordinarily” appearing in Section 177 of the Code, 1973 means a regular, normal, customary, usual and not exceptional. The exceptions are contained in Section 178 onwards - The rule laid down in Section 177 of the Code is one of general application and governs all Criminal trials held under the provisions of the Code. The word “shall” as used in Section 177 is indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision and all offences which do not fall within the purview of special provisions contained under the exceptions should be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence is committed - It is only the last act i.e. failure of the drawer to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice of the amount due on the cheque which completes the commission of offence. If the payment is made within the said period of notice then there is no offence committed but in case of failure alone that the offence gets completed - Offence under Section 138 of the Act gets completed or committed by an accused in all respects upon the failure by the accused to comply with the notice of demand - The common law principle that the debtor should seek the creditor and pay the debt to him at the place where he resides can be invoked and applied in these cases also. - Nutan Damodar Prabhu v. Ravindra Vassant Kenkre [2007] GCtR 6482 (Goa, Bombay)