138 ni act

Hi all,

I need recent Supreme court guidelines on Jurisdiction point under 138 of NI act, can any provide,its urgent.

Reply Follow

5 Replies

madhu mittal (director) 20 July 2013

Supreme Court of India

Nishant Aggarwal vs Kailash Kumar Sharma on 1 July, 2013

Author: P.Sathasivam

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 808 OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9434 of 2011)

Nishant Aggarwal .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Kailash Kumar Sharma .... Respondent(s)

V.G.Rao Advocate (Advocate) 20 July 2013

Thank U Mr.Madhu mittal ji.

YOGESHWAR. (ADVOCATE HIGH COURT-criminal /civil -youract@gmail.com) 20 July 2013

This JUDGMENT has come from a highly contested case between the parties.

However any accused can still take benefit from this recent citation of APEX COURT.

Their LORDSHIPS have repeated at many places IN THIS CITATION that the place of presentation of complaint cheque is from the regular place of residence of complainant. The court has specifically noted that there is proper pleading in the complaint of this effect.

The question will arise and accused can contest the presentation of cheque is not from the normal place .of residence of complainant., just because with modern technology any person can open account from any where other than the normal place of business.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER SIMILAR ISSUES WHICH ANY ACCUSED CAN RAISE AT THRESHHOLD OF ANY COMPLAINT FOR CHEQUE BOUNCE ABOUT JURISDICTION.

MARU ADVOCATE (simple solutions for criminal legal problems -- yourpunch@gmail.com) 21 July 2013

Raising issue of jurisdiction at threshhold is very good tactic for the accused to derail the case and ultimately win the case.

A interesting case. In 2010 process issed at Delhi for a Mumbai party. They applied for jurisdiction issue which was kept pending. On 25.05.2010 filed application before Helhi HC u/s 482 against this which was rejected on 23.09.2010.Matter went to SC which passed an order on 24.01.2011 and remanded matter back to JMFC DELHI.. The trial court rejected the application on 14.02.2011 on the plea that once it has isseud process that same can not be recalled.

The party went again before Delhi HC and the court decided the matter on 21.09.2011 in favor of accused quashing the complaint.

The details are given to show that if such prelim objections are doggedly persued than there are always results without going through the comlex trial and uncertain results.

(Guest)

Jurisdiction of court in case of dishonour of cheque

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.”1

In a cheque bouncing case, Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar , the Supreme Court said that a complaint can be filed either at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business.

Supreme Court of India

Nishant Aggarwal vs Kailash Kumar Sharma on 1 July, 2013

https://www.lawweb.in/2013/10/jurisdiction-of-court-in-case-of.html