Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Vide the said impugned orders, learned trial courts returned the complaint(s) to the petitioner/ complainant for filing the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the judgment in „Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.‟ (Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2014).

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that now a days, almost all the branches of the bank are covered under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and in terms of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RBI/2012-13/163 DPSS.CO.CHD. No.271/03.01.02/2012-13 dated 10.08.2012, all CBS enabled banks have been asked to issue only „payable at par‟/ „multi-city‟ CTS 2010 standard cheques to all eligible customers. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the essential features of multi-city/ cheques payable at par is that the holder of cheque can present the same at any CBS enabled branch of the drawee bank in order to encash the said cheque. That being so, the complainant is well within its right to initiate prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act at the place where the branch in which the cheque in question was presented for its encashment irrespective of the fact that such branch was not the home branch of the drawee bank where the accused was having a bank account. In other words, the main thrust of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner/ complainant is that the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act can be instituted even at that branch of a bank wherein the cheques in question were deposited and got dishonoured, in addition to the home branch of the drawee bank wherein the accused has bank account. When the accused issued such a cheque „payable at par‟ there was an express authority to the complainant under the aforesaid condition to present the cheque in any branch of the concerned Bank.

9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the material on record.

10. As is evident from the above discussion, the moot question involved in all these petitions is as to whether Delhi Courts would have territorial jurisdiction to try the cases instituted under Section 138 of NI Act merely because the cheques in question are „payable at par‟ at all branches of drawee bank being „multi-city cheques‟ and one of the branches of drawee bank is situated at Delhi.

14. On bare reading of provisions contained in Section 138 read with Section 142 of NI Act and the view taken by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), there is no scope of confusion that complaint under Section 138 of NI Act will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. In other words, the prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act would only lie at the place where the drawee bank is situated.

15. No doubt, a cheque which is made „payable at par‟/ „multi-city‟ cheque can be presented at any of the branches of bank, which has been nominated as CBS branch of the drawee bank in terms of the recent guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular dated 10.08.2012. However, it is to be noticed that the said guidelines had been issued by Reserve Bank of India with altogether different object. The said object is to facilitate speedy encashment of amount against cheques more particularly in cases of out stationed cheques. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past, there used to be considerable delay in collection of out stationed cheques which led to number of complaints from customers and members of public at large. The average time consumed in the out stationed cheque used to be somewhere between seven days to one month. In order to improve the service with regard to collection of out stationed cheques, facility of cheques which are „payable at par‟/ „multi-city cheques‟ was introduced in the banking system. In order to regulate the same, Reserve Bank of India also issued policy which is known as Policy on Multi-city/payable at par CTS 2010 Standard Cheques. The perusal of the said policy would reveal that certain limit has been prescribed on payment of multi-city cheques at non-home branches as mentioned therein.

16. According to the said policy, in case cheque account of multi- city cheque to be presented at non-home branch in case of saving bank account, is more than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) then same would not be accepted by non-home branch of the drawee bank and thus, it has to be presented at the home branch of the drawee bank for its encashment. Same is the position with regard to other types of bank accounts like current account, cash credits, etc.

17. There is another reason due to which the contention raised on behalf of petitioner/ complainant cannot be sustained. The cheque amount is supposed to be paid from the account of accused/ respondents maintained at home branch of drawee bank. It is merely as a result of computerization of all the branches of bank, facility has been provided for encashment of cheques payable at par at any branch irrespective of the fact that account holder was not having bank account in the branch where the cheque is presented. Merely because the cheque has been presented at non-home of drawee bank, it does not in any manner, become the drawee bank for the obvious reason that before encashing the cheque payable at par, the non-home branch is still required to verify from home branch of the drawee branch as to whether or not there was any impediment in encashment of the cheque drawn at home branch. Even otherwise, in the event of encashment, the amount of cheque would be required to be debited in the account of the accused maintained at home branch as the amount was only payable by the home branch of drawee bank. Therefore, the presentation of cheque at non-home branch of drawee bank being the cheque which is payable at par/ multi-city cheque, will not change the character of drawee bank and would not confer territorial jurisdiction on Delhi Courts.