Kerala High Court
Anjillath Mohammed Kunhi vs K.K. Abdul Kajeed on 27 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: [1999]98COMPCAS607(KER), 1996CRILJ2395
Author: N. Dhinakar
Bench: N. Dhinakar
JUDGMENT N. Dhinakar, J.
1. As the points to be considered in all the above criminal miscellaneous cases are one and the same, the above criminal miscellaneous cases are disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioner in all the above criminal miscellaneous cases questions the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, to entertain a complaint laid for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stating that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in the above criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragode, and the complaints ought to have been filed before the said Magistrate. According to the petitioner, the cheques in question were issued by him within the jurisdiction of Kasaragode and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, will not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaints merely because the cheques were later presented by the respective complainants with their bankers at Kannur.
3. I am not able lo agree with the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In P.K. Muraleedharan v. C.K. Parsed [1992] 1 KLT 59 ; [1993] 7fj Com]) Cas 615, a learned single judge of this court held that the cause of action arises at the place where the cheque was issued or delivered or the place where the money was expressly or impliedly payable. There can be no doubt that when a cheque is issued, by implication, the amount is payable by the drawer to the payee through the bankers of the said payee. In short, the amount due on the cheque is impliedly payable by the drawer through the bankers of the payee. The learned single judge was of the view that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued can also entertain a complaint. The learned judge has extended the jurisdiction of the criminal court to say that a complaint can be laid even in a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued. The learned judge held that the cause of action can be the place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located and it can also be a place where the cheque was issued or delivered. The court within whose jurisdiction any of the above mentioned places falls has also jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In fact the above judgment itself shows that the complaint can be laid at the place where the cheque was dishonoured and also at the place where the cheque was issued, which means that the complaints laid in these cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, has jurisdiction to try the offence.
4. While considering a similar question, the learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka [1992] 73 Comp Cas 431 ; [1992] 1 KLT 393, held that the offence falling under Section 138 of the Act will not be the only solitary act of dishonour by the bank on which the cheque is drawn. Even giving of the cheque by the accused when he has not made arrangements for honouring of the cheques itself will be a part of the facts constituting the offence. Section 178(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another area, it may be enquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Under Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Giving the cheques by the accused to the complainant and giving the cheque for collection by the complainant to its banker at Bangalore, will also be the facts constituting the offence. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 178(b) and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complaint can be filed in a court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is not honoured.
5. Similarly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in T.K. Khungar v. Sanjay Ghai [1995] AIHC 636 ; [1999] 98 Comp Cas 601, held that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. A similar view was taken by a learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Manivannan v. Ever King Garments [1994] 2 BC 46 ; [1995] 83 Comp Cas 473.
6. I am in respectful agreement with the above views expressed by the various High Courts as well as by this court.
7. It is also to he noted that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then the very purpose of the Act will be defeated. The penal provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act was introduced only with a view to give more credence to the cheques issued by persons during their commercial transactions. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then the possibility of the persons refusing to accept the cheques is more, as in the event of the cheques being dishonoured, the parties will have to go and file complaints only before the courts within whose jurisdiction the cheques were issued. In my view that could never be the intention of the Legislature when they introduce the penal provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the view that the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the complainants.
9. The above miscellaneous cases deserve to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed.