1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C 540 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Thiruvalla. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statement in the complaint is that the petitioner obtained a loan of 3.8 lakh dirhams for conducting the business of provision store and canteen. Petitioner issued a cheque for 16,000 dirhams on 1-1-2001 towards part payment of the amount borrowed from the second respondent. The cheque was drawn on M/s. Abudabi Commercial Bank, Industrial Area Branch, Sharjah and the second respondent presented the cheque in M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvalla Branch on 22-1-2001. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account for making payment of the amount covered by the cheque. Second respondent got intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque on 7-2-2001 and notice was sent to the petitioner informing the dishonour of the cheque. The complaint alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed alleging that in spite of issuance of notice the petitioner did not pay the amount covered by the cheque.
2. According to the petitioner, in connection with a chitty transaction he had to give a signed blank cheque as security along with the other documents. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that the cheque was drawn on a bank in Sharjah and the transaction was also in Sharjah. It is stated that no part of the transaction took place within India and no complaint can be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is also contention that even if the allegations in the complaint are true, the alleged transaction is in clear violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
3. The cheque in question was drawn on M/s. Abudabi Commercial Bank, Industrial Area Branch, Sharjah. The second respondent presented the cheque in M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvalla Branch on 22-1-2001. Then the second respondent got intimation that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that the cheque was issued in Sharjah drawn on a bank in Sharjah and the entire transaction was in Sharjah and hence it cannot be said that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was committed.
4. There is no merit in the above contention raised by the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskaran v. Balan (1999 (3) KLT 440 (SC) in which it was held that drawing of cheque, presentation of the cheque to the bank, returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice are the components of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Since the presentation of the cheque for encashment was at a place within the jurisdiction of a court in which complaint is filed the complaint alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be maintained in that Court.
5. A decision on the contention raised by the petitioner that he was forced to give signed blank cheque to the second respondent in connection with a chitty transaction along with other documents and that was given towards security, can be taken only after taking evidence. A final decision on that question cannot be taken in a proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In respect of the contention raised that the money transaction is in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 what has to be said is that even if there is violation of the provisions of that Act the parties to the money transactions have to face the consequences mentioned in that Act for the violation and that has nothing to do with the allegation that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This is a case in which the cheque was presented in a bank in India for collection of the amount and when that cheque was sent for encashment that was returned with the endorsement that there was no sufficient amount in the account to honour the cheque.
6. There are no grounds for quashing the proceedings in the case and this petition is hence dismissed.