Madras High Court
M/S.Priya Enterprises vs M/S.K.V.P.Enterprises on 20 September, 2013
Author: K.B.K.Vasuki
Bench: K.B.K.Vasuki
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.09.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.R.C.Nos.823 and 824 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 1.M/s.Priya Enterprises through its partner T.Jawahar 2.T.Jawahar Partner M/s.Priya Enterprises 3.Nellairajan Partner .. Petitioners M/s.Priya Enterprises in Crl.RC.No.823/2013 T.Bhaskar Proprietor Kamalesh Traders .. Petitioner in Crl.RC.No.824/2013 Vs. M/s.K.V.P.Enterprises, SSC Oil Mills represented by its Partner S.Selvaraj .. Respondent in both Crl.RCs Prayer:- Criminal Revisions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.MP.Nos.1001 and 1000 of 2012 in CC.Nos.196 and 195 of 2012 respectively dated 31.12.2012 on the file of the Fast Track (Magistrate Level) Kovilpatti and to set aside the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. For Petitioners : Mr.S.C.Vishwanth For Respondent : M/s.P.G.Thiyagu *** COMMON ORDER
The accused in CC.Nos.195 and 196 of 2012 are the revision petitioners. The legal issue involved in these petitions is as to whether Kovilpatti has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.The complaints proceed as if the complainant, who is having its registered office at Kovilpatti, received orders from the accused on 23.6.2010 and 2.7.2010 and in pursuance of the same, supplied Gingelly oil to the accused and the accused issued two cheques for the amount due to the complainant and when the same were presented for collection through Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Pondicherry, the same were returned dishonoured by the accused banker for want of sufficient funds and the intimation about dishonour of cheques was received by the complainant on 22.7.2010 and the same compelled the complainant to send the registered legal notice at Kovilpatti to the accused calling upon them to pay dishonoured cheques amount and the same was replied by the accused and the reply was received by the complainant at Kovilpatti and the failure on the part of the accused to pay two cheques amount, give rise to cause of action for filing the private complaints against the accused.
3.The complaints were taken on record as CC.Nos.227 and 228/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti and thereafter transferred and renumbered as CC.Nos.195 and 196 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti and summons were issued to the accused, who, on entering appearance, filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2012 in both CCs for returning the complaints on the ground that Kovilpatti Court has no territorial jurisdiction and as the cheques were issued at Pondicherry and the cheques were returned unpaid by Pondicherry bank and the statutory notices were also served at the drawer at Pondicherry, Pondicherry has got territorial jurisdiction and as no part of cause of cation arose at Kovilpatti, Kovilpatti has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and the complaints filed ought to have been returned for want of territorial jurisdiction.
4.However, the trial court dismissed both the petitions by relying on the following authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court: (i)1999 (3) SCC 510 (K.Baskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan); (ii)2009 (1) LW (Crl) 382 (Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another v. National Panasonic India Private Limited) and (iii) 2011 2 MWN Crl.DCB 22 Madras (A.S.Malan). It is, by relying on the principles laid down in the above authorities, decided by the lower court that either of the places at which either of 5 acts, which are the five components of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, occur, shall have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The five components of the offence are (i)drawing of the cheque(ii)presentation of the cheque to the bank (iii)return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank (iv)giving notice in writing to the drawer and (v)failure of drawer to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Going by the averments raised in the complaints, the trial court was of the view that Kovilpatti, which is the place from where the cheques were presented for collection through the complainant bank and from where, the communication for return of the cheques was received by the accused, has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and dismissed the petitions filed by the accused. Aggrieved against the same, the accused have preferred the present criminal revisions before this court.
5.Heard both sides.
6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has reiterated the same stand relating to territorial jurisdiction issue before this court. The same is sought to be answered by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant by relying on the same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (3) SCC 510 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 (K.Baskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan) and on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 3 MLJ (Crl) 570 (SC) (Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma).
7.In the latest decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying on the principles laid down in Harman Electronics Private Limited case and K.Bhaskaran case, is pleased to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice, can have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue involved in Harman Electronics Private Ltd case is as to whether the court will have jurisdiction because only notice is issued from the place which falls within its jurisdiction and the same is elaborately dealt with and while doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted that the place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured has jurisdiction to try the complaint. In this way, this Court concluded that issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action, but communication of the notice would. In other words, the Court clarified only on the service in such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days, thereafter the commission of an offence completes. However, while answering so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle as laid down in Bhaskaran case that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice, can have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Hon'ble Apex court has also in para 13 of the decision in Nishant Aggarwal case referred to the authority in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd v. Jayaswals Neco Limited (AIR 2001 SC 1161) wherein also, same principle was reiterated.
8.If the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is applied to the facts of the present case, the same would compel this Court to negative the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction. The complainant, having its registered office at Kovilpatti and received supply orders from the accused at Kovilpatti and having supplied Gingelly oil to the accused and having sent legal notice at Kovilpatti and having received reply from the accused at Kovilpatti and the cheque amount, having been payable at Kovilpatti, the main part of cause of action arises at Kovilpatti and Kovilpatti has territorial jurisdiction and the issue is hence rightly decided in favour of the complainant. In that event, the objection raised regarding territorial jurisdiction lacks bonafide and this court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court.
9.In the result, these Criminal Revisions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20-09-2013 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rk To The Fast Track (Magistrate Level) Kovilpatti.
K.B.K.VASUKI, J.
rk Crl.R.C.Nos.823 and 824 of 2013 20-09-2013