Baldev Dass vs State Of Punjab And Another

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed a petition seeking transfer of the criminal trial from District Barnala to District Fatehgarh Sahib on the grounds of old age, ailments, and pendency of cross-cases. The High Court held that it cannot confer territorial jurisdiction in cases of cheque bouncing merely for the convenience or inconvenience of parties, and that cross-cases related to FIRs have no bearing on a Section 138 complaint.

Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 676, the Court dismissed the transfer petition, reiterating that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be transferred at the convenience of the accused. The Court noted that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to seek exemption from personal appearance before the trial court.

The High Court directed that if the petitioner files an application for exemption from personal appearance or for appearance through video conferencing on account of apprehension of threat from the complainant, the trial court shall consider the same sympathetically and decide it in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

Catchwords: Transfer of criminal trial · Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act · cheque dishonour · territorial jurisdiction · convenience of accused · exemption from personal appearance · video conferencing · old age · cross-cases · legal aid counsel