Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26022 of 2007 Applicant :- Sayed Raif Syeed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Narain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pradeep Upadhyay
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri M Aasif, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Pradeep Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
Applicants have filed this application under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of proceedings of Case No. 33 of 2007 (Farhat Ali Khan vs. Sayed Raif Sayeed), under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District Aligarh, pending in the court of C.J.M., Aligarh.
The only submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the impugned cheque was drawn on Standered Chartered Bank, New Delhi and on being presented for encashment it was dishonoured by the same branch, the chief Judicial magistrate, Aligarh has no jurisdiction to try the case for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decison on Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 589 in which the Apex Court has held that fact of the dishonour by the drawee bank gives rise to the territorial jurisdiction for trial of the case under section 138 and the place of issue of notice demanding payment by the payee is not relevant as the cheque must reach to the drawee Bank within six months from the date of its issue.
In reply, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that in view of amendment made in section 142 of the N.I. Act, the offence under section 138 may be enquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the Bank where payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account is situated; (b) or if the cheque is presented for payment by payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account the branch of the drawee Bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
It is further submitted that amendment in section 142 has been made with retrospective affect and not from the date when the amendment was notified in the official gazette.
From the amendment made in section 142 it is clear that if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the offence under section 138 shall be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated.
It is not disputed that applicant maintains the account in a branch of Bank of Baroda at Aligarh. He had presented the cheque for encashment in the said branch of the Bank of Baroda at Aligarh. The cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund in the account of applicant in the branch of Standered Chartered Bank at New Delhi. Since the cheque was delivered for encashment at the branch of Bank of Baroda at Aligarh in which opposite party no. 2 maintains his account, CJM Aligarh has jurisdiction to enquire into and try the case.
In view of the aforesaid, application has no force and is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Bhanu