Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.406 – Transfer of criminal cases – Power of Supreme Court – Held: Notwithstanding the non-obstante clause in s.142(1), the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases u/s.406, Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences u/s.138, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice – In the present case, as the six complaint cases filed by the respondent (four before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and two before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra) pertain to the same transaction, it would be advisable to have a common adjudication to obviate the possibility of contradictory findings being rendered in connection therewith by different Courts – Cases pending before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi – Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 – ss. 142(2), 142A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142(2)(a) – Held: s.142(2)(a) vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence u/s.138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account – Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Words & Phrases – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.142(2) – ‘shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction……’ – Discussed.
Allowing the transfer petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in Amendment Act 26 of 2015 makes it amply clear that insertion of Sections 142(2) and 142-A in the Act of 1881 was a direct consequence of the judgment of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod. Therefore, the use of the phrase: ‘shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction……’in Section 142(2) of the Act 1881 is contextual to the ratio laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod to the contrary, whereby territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section
138 of the Act of 1881 vested in the Court having jurisdiction over the drawee bank and not the complainant’s bank where he had presented the cheque. Section 142(2) now makes it clear that the jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly inserted Section 142-A further clarifies this position by validating the transfer of pending cases to the Courts conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment. [Para 11][516-E-H] Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2014) 9 SCC 129: [2014] 11 SCR 921; Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75 : [2015] 14 SCR 153 – relied on.
1.2 Institution of the first two complaint cases before the Courts at Nagpur is in keeping with the legal position obtaining now. The non obstante clause was there in the original Section
142 itself and was not introduced by way of the amendments in the year 2015, along with Section 142(2). The said clause merely has reference to the manner in which cognizance is to be taken in offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as a departure has to be made from the usual procedure inasmuch as prosecution for the said offence stands postponed despite commission of the offence being complete upon dishonour of the cheque and it must necessarily be in terms of the procedure prescribed. The clause, therefore, has to be read and understood in the context and for the purpose it is used and it does not lend itself to the interpretation that Section 406 Cr.P.C. would stand excluded visà-vis offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The power of this Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under Section
406 Cr.P.C. does not stand abrogated thereby in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. It may be noted that this Court exercised power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 even during the time the original Section 142 held the field. We, therefore, hold that, notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice. In the case on hand, as the six complaint cases pertain to the same transaction, it would be advisable to have a common adjudication to obviate the possibility of contradictory findings being rendered in connection therewith by different Courts. As four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, including the parties and their witnesses, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi. [Paras 13, 14][517-C-H; 518-A]
K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and
another (1999) 7 SCC 510 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 271; A.E. Premanand vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. & Others (2004) 13 SCC 527 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.