While
hearing a petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of a court to try
an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,the Honorable Supreme Court has held that only a lower court in whose jurisdiction an offence of cheque bounce
is committed will try the case.
The
Apex court observed that there are numerous instances where complaints are being
filed at more than one place to harass an accused and held that the court cannot
be oblivious of the fact that a banking institution holding several cheques signed
by the same borrower can
not only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but
also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file
four complaint cases at four different places.This only causes grave
harassment to the accused.It is,therefore, necessary to strike a balance
between the right of the complainant and the right of an accused vis-a-vis the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case of this nature.Jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code and not on common law principle.
The Honorable
Court has further observed that the complainants, including financial institutions
and banks, while filing
cheque bounce cases, should ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the accused.These observations were made by the apex court during the hearing of a case
between Harman Electronics and National Panasonic India (NPI) under the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Harman
Electronics and NPI had entered into a transaction in Chandigarh and a cheque
issued by the former at Chandigarh was dishonoured in the city itself. However,
NPI had filed a complaint in Delhi, after issuing a notice from New Delhi to Harman
Electronics in Chandigarh, asking the company to pay Rs 5lakh.
The company then questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, New Delhi, in the case.The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint as the notice was sent to the accused from Delhi and the
complainant was having its registered office in Delhi. The Apex court while
holding the judgement in favor of
the company said the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to try the case and the
same should be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction.
For more details,
No comments:
Post a Comment