- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shamshad Begum (Smt) v. B. Mohammed .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was the sole accused in CC No. 1042 of 2004 before the Vth Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Contending that the Mangalore court lacked territorial jurisdiction—because the agreement was executed in Bangalore, both parties resided there, and the cheques were dishonoured by Bangalore banks—the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Karnataka High Court to quash the proceedings. A learned Single Judge dismissed that petition, noting that statutory notice demanding payment had been issued from, and received at, Mangalore and was therefore a component of the offence that conferred jurisdiction on the Mangalore court. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court in the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court at Mangalore possesses territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when only the statutory demand notice was issued and received within its territorial limits.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The entire transaction—agreement execution, residence of parties, and dishonour of cheques—took place in Bangalore; hence, only Bangalore courts have jurisdiction.
- The issuance of notice from Mangalore is insufficient to confer jurisdiction because the other essential acts occurred in Bangalore.
Respondent's Arguments
- Before issuing the statutory notice, the respondent shifted residence to Mangalore and dispatched the notice from there; the appellant acknowledged this by sending her reply to the Mangalore address.
- Issuance of notice is an essential component of the offence under Section 138; therefore, Mangalore courts are vested with jurisdiction under Section 178(d) CrPC.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 | An offence under Section 138 is completed only when five distinct acts occur; any court within whose jurisdiction any one of those acts takes place may try the offence (Section 178(d) CrPC). | The Supreme Court reiterated that issuance of the statutory notice is one of the five constituent acts. Because that act occurred in Mangalore, the Mangalore court has jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court relied heavily on K. Bhaskaran, reaffirming that the offence under Section 138 comprises five discrete acts: (1) drawing the cheque, (2) presenting it to the bank, (3) dishonour, (4) issuing written notice demanding payment, and (5) failure to pay within fifteen days. Section 178(d) CrPC permits trial in any local area where any of these acts was committed. The Court observed that the respondent’s statutory notice was issued from, and responded to at, Mangalore, satisfying one of the requisite components. Consequently, territorial jurisdiction vested in the Mangalore court. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s reasoning, the Court declined to interfere.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The dismissal upholds the High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings in the Mangalore court, confirming that issuance of the statutory demand notice is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No new legal precedent is created, but the decision reinforces existing principles on territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). The prayer in the petition was to quash all proceedings in CC No. 1042 of 2004 on the file of the learned Vth JMF Court, Mangalore.
3. The appellant is the accused in the aforesaid case in relation to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act”). The petition was filed before the High Court on the ground that the Mangalore Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It was stated that the agreement between the parties was entered into in Bangalore and the parties live in Mangalore and the cheques were returned from the banks at Bangalore and therefore the Bangalore Court has jurisdiction to try the case.
4. In response, the respondent had submitted that before issuing notice to the appellant he had shifted his residence to Mangalore and therefore he had issued the notice from Mangalore which was received by the appellant and the reply was sent by her to the complainant at the Mangalore address. Therefore, as one of the components of the said offence i.e notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of cheque amount was sent from Mangalore, the Court at Mangalore had jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court noted that one of the components of the offence was giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount. The said action took place within Mangalore jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition was without merit. It was however stated that if the presence of the appellant was not very necessary for continuation of the proceeding, on appropriate application being filed, the court can grant exemption from appearance.
5. In support of the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court at Mangalore had no jurisdiction.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
7. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 it was inter alia observed as follows:
“15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:
‘178. (a)-(c)***
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.’
16. Thus it is clear, 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. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
17. The more important point to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the accused was returned as ‘unclaimed’. The conditions pertaining to the notice to be given to the drawer, have been formulated and incorporated in clauses (b) to (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. The said clauses are extracted below:
‘(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.’ ”
8. As was noted in K. Bhaskaran case (1999) 7 SCC 510 the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are components are as follows:
(1) drawing of the cheque;
(2) presentation of the cheque to the bank;
(3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank;
(4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount;
(5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
9. It is not necessary that the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert