Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Shamshad Begum vs B.Mohammed on 3 November, 2008
The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in „Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed.‟ AIR 2009 SC
1355. In that case, the respondent filed a complaint against the
appellant at Mangalore under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Before filing complaint, the respondent had
issued a notice to the appellant from Mangalore and a reply was
sent by her to the complainant at his Mangalore address. The
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 861, 884 & 885 of 2009 Page 6 of 11
appellant filed a petition in Karnataka High Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the
complaint on the ground that since the agreement between the
parties was entered into at Bangalore and the cheques were
returned from the banks at Bangalore, only Bangalore court had
jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court having dismissed
the petition, the appellant came to the Supreme Court by
obtaining Special Leave.
K.O.Issac & Anr vs State & Anr. on 21 October, 2009
This judgment was
considered by me in Crl.M.C. 1580/2009 titled „K.O. ISSAC &
Anr. vs. State & Anr.‟ decided on 21st October 2010 alongwith
other judgment on the subject including the later decision of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics
(supra) and I took the view that mere sending of notice from
Delhi to the accused, who is outside the jurisdiction of Delhi
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 861, 884 & 885 of 2009 Page 7 of 11
Court, does not confer jurisdiction of Delhi Court to entertain
and try a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd vs Jayaswals Neco Limited on 22 February, 2001
In 'Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd,‟
(2001) 3 SCC 609, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inter-alia, held
that "The bank" referred to in clause (a) to the proviso of Section
138 of the Act would mean the drawee bank on which the
cheque is drawn and not all the banks where the cheque is
presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in
whose favour the cheque is issued."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Musaraf Hossain Khan vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors on 24 February, 2006
8. As regard, issue of notice from Delhi, Hon‟ble Supreme
Court held that issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to
a cause of action but communication of notice would give. The
Hon‟ble Court was of the view that for constituting offence u/s
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the notice must be received
by the accused, though it may be deemed to have been received
in certain situations. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also referred
to its own decision in „Mosaraf Hossain Khan v.
Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd.' (2006) 3 SCC 658. In that case
respondent No.1 issued certain cheques to the appellant from
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 861, 884 & 885 of 2009 Page 4 of 11
Ernakulam, which were deposited by him with Suri Branch of
the Bank. The respondent was also having an office at
Ernakulam. On return of the cheques, demand notice was sent
by the appellant to the respondents. On non-payment, criminal
complaint was filed by the appellant in the court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bir Bhum at Suri. It was observed that
sending of cheques from the Ernakulam or the respondent
having an offence at that place did not form an integral part of
the cause of action for which a complaint petition was filed by
the appellant and cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Suri. It was noted that while issuance of notice by
the holder of Negotiable Instrument is necessary, service thereof
is also imperative and only after service of 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 and, therefore, giving of notice cannot have
precedence over the service. The Hon‟ble Court declined to
apply the civil law Principle that the debtor must seek the
creditor, to a criminal case. Holding that jurisdiction in a
criminal case is governed by the provisions of Criminal
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 861, 884 & 885 of 2009 Page 5 of 11
Procedure Code and not on common law principle, it was held
that Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1