Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNIVERSITY GANDHINAGAR
PROJECT ON
SUBMITTED BY
Shubham Phophalia
(16B153)
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
-: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT :-
Thanking everyone
Vinod Panwar
CONTENTS
Particulars
Page
1. Acknowledgements …………………………………………...…2
2. Abstract..........................................................................
.................4
3. Introduction…………………………………………………...…..5
4. Negotiable Instrument…………………………………………...5
5. Section 138 Of Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881……………….6
6. Jurisdiction……………………………………………………..….7
7. Latest Law On Jurisdiction Of Cheque
Dishonour.....................9
8. Precedent........................................................................
................10
9. The Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill,
2015................14
10. Conclusion......................................................................
................17
11. Bibliography....................................................................
...............18
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCATION
Negotiable Instrument
Negotiable instrument is a written order or unconditional promise to pay
a fixed sum of money on demand or at a certain time. A negotiable
instrument can be transferred from one person to another. Once the
instrument is transferred, the holder obtains full legal title to the
instrument. The transfer should be unrestricted and in good faith.
Therefore, a negotiable instrument is a document guaranteeing the
E-CHEQUE
Electronic cheque (e-cheque) is the image of a normal paper cheque
generated, written and signed in a secure system using digital signature
and asymmetric crypto system. Simply said an electronic cheque is
nothing more than an ordinary cheque produced on a computer system
and instead of signing it in ink, it is signed using the digital equivalent of
ink. After the coming into force of The Negotiable Instruments
(Amendment And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, legal recognition
has been accorded to e-cheques and they have been brought at par with
the normal cheques. Now, a ‘cheque’ includes an e-cheque.
1
The Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 as Amended in 2002 & 2005
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
Jurisdiction
2
http://court.laws.com/jurisdiction
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
Most often people don’t know about the place where criminal complaint
can be filed under the NI Act, as the act is silent on this matter. Because
the criminal courts are approached, the issue needs to be examined from
the point of view of the criminal procedure code.
3
Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
4
Section 178 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
5
Section 179 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
6
Dashrath Rusingh Rathod vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. Cr. Appeal No. 2287/2009
Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India on 1st August 2014.
Nagappan ruled that the case has to be started at the place where the
branch of the bank on which the cheque was drawn is located.
And the judgment would apply retrospectively. This means, lakhs of cases
pending in various courts across the country would witness an interstate
transfer of cheque bouncing cases.
The bench said: “In this analysis, we hold that the place, sites or venue of
judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to
where the drawee bank is located.”
The rationale behind this change is that the payers majority being
businessmen and traders were using extending credit recklessly and due
to the flexibility in the provision of Section 138, it was being misused in
regards to the place of institution, as sometime the payer had no concern
with the place where the cheque was issued and to unnecessarily harass
the payee cause hardship of place of institution of case according to their
convenience. To stop this practice this judgment aims to get to the root of
the issue and resolve it by a strict approach so as to discourage the payer
from misusing or carelessly issuing cheques. The problem of travelling to
the location of drawee bank is now on the payer.
The change in the existing law shifts the inconvenience and problem on
the payer because now he would have to travel to the place of the drawee
bank where the cheque gets dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
Hence, guaranteeing more precaution by the payer at the time of issuing
the cheque.
PRECEDENT
It was held that upon the completion of the offence, any Court, within
whose jurisdiction, any one of the five acts took place, would have the
required jurisdiction to try such case. In other means, 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 vast and so expensive it is an
idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question concerning the offence under
Section 138 of the Act.”
A payee can give the cheque to any bank for collection from the drawee
bank, but such presentation will be valid only if the drawee bank receives
7
K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr. ( 1999) 7 SCC 510 Decided on 29
September, 1999
8
Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd (2001) 3 SCC 609
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
the cheque for payment within the period of six months from the date of
issue. However, a payee, merely by depositing his/her cheque in any bank
of his choice at any place, cannot create jurisdiction on a Court of his
choice.
9
Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
The judgments in Bhaskaran and Harman case showed the liberal and
the strict views, respectively, on the issue of territorial jurisdiction for
trial of the offence of dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Act.
iii. If the drawer cannot to pay the cheque amount within fifteen
days of receipt of such notice.
viii. The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C applies
to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose
jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations
where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable
under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a
single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read
with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is
covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with
Sections 184 and 220 thereof.
Example, if you are the payee of the cheque and if you present this
cheque for clearing at Delhi, it cannot be filed at Delhi. Thus, the
uncertainty about the place where such a case can be filed was removed.
The positive impact of this judgement is that, the payee of a cheque could
not unnecessarily harass the drawer of the cheque by filing the cheque
bouncing case at the place of his choice by deliberately choosing a
different place for presenting the cheque or for sending the notice, etc.
By this judgement the negative impact is that drawee need to filed the
case where the cheque is dishonoured other means where the payee
bank account, even if the fault is by the payee.
This judgement was not clear, what will happen in situation where “at per
payable at all branches of the bank” ?
bank, can choose the place where he wants to present the cheque, and
thereafter when it is sent for clearing to the nearest branch of the bank
in that city, the court having jurisdiction over that clearing branch has
the territorial jurisdiction of the cheque bouncing case! So, in respect of
the multi-city cheques. Here in this case the court again create doubt on
the territorial jurisdiction of cheque bouncing cases with regard to multi-
city cheques payable at par in all branches of bank.
These all proposition laid down in Dhashart singh case will be changed
after the parliament make a new amendment in Negotiable Instrument.
The Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced in the
Lok-sabha on May 06,2015 and passed on May 13, and this bill was
withdrawn in Rajya-sabha on July 24, 2015.
The Act specifies situations under which complaints for cheque bouncing
can be filed. However, the Act does not specify the territorial jurisdiction
of the courts where such a complaint is to be filed. The Bill amends the
Act to state that suits of bouncing of cheques can be filed only in a court
in whose jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee (person who receives
the cheque) lies.
10
The Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill, 2015
http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-negotiable-instruments-amendment-bill-2015-3778/
last visit 2015-09-14
If more than one suit is filed against the same person before different
courts, the case will be transferred to the court with the appropriate
jurisdiction.
The Bills also amends the definition of ‘cheque in the electronic form’.
Under the Act, it was defined as a cheque having the exact mirror image
of a paper cheque and generated in a secure system using a digital
signature. The definition has been amended to mean a cheque drawn in
electronic medium using any computer source and which is signed in a
secure system with a digital signature, or electronic system.
The jurisdiction of filing cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act is now changed by the above Ordinance as under:
Now a cheque bouncing case can be filed only in the court at the place
where the bank in which the payee has account is located. For example,
if you are based at Delhi and you have an account in a bank in a
particular area of Delhi. You receive a cheque from someone in Mumbai.
You present your cheque in Delhi in the bank where you have your
account. Now, if this cheque is dishonoured, then the cheque bounce case
can be filed only in Delhi in the court which has jurisdiction over the area
where your bank is located.
Secondly, once you have filed a cheque bounce case in one particular
court at a place in this manner, subsequently if there is any other cheque
of the same party (drawer) which has also bounced, then all such
subsequent cheque bounce cases against the same drawer will also have
to filed in the same court (even if you present them in some bank in some
other city or area). This will ensure that the drawer of cheques is not
harassed by filing multiple cheque bounce cases at different locations.
So, even multiple cheque bounce cases against the same party can be
filed only in one court even if you present the cheques in different banks
at different locations.
Thirdly, all cheque bounce cases which are pending as on 15 June 2015 in
different courts in India, will be transferred to the court which has
jurisdiction to try such case in the manner mentioned above, i.e., such
pending cases will be transferred to the court which has jurisdiction over
the place where the bank of the payee is located. If there are multiple
cheque bounce cases pending between the same parties as on 15 June
2015, then all such multiple cases will be transferred to the court where
the first case has jurisdiction as per above principle.11
11
what is the change in jurisdiction for cheque bouncing cases now in view of the
Ordinance? http://tilakmarg.com/news/jurisdiction-in-cheque-bouncing-cases-is-
changed-by-new-ordinance-superseding-sc-judgment/ last Visit 2015-09-14
Renouncement of Territorial Jurisdiction of Section 138 of Negotiable 3
Instrument Act, 1881
GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,GANDHINAGAR
Conclusion:
In the analysis of the above laws and the quoted Hon’ble Supreme court
decisions it is crystal clear that the place, site or venue of judicial inquiry
and trial of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 must
logically be restricted to where the drawer bank is located and this can
also be inferred from the bare reading of section 138 of N.I Act read with
section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which leaves no iota of
doubt that return of cheque by the drawee bank along constitute the
commission of offence and indicates the place where the offence is
committed. While taking into consideration the territorial aspect on the
same at “At Par Cheques”, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that
the cheques issued at par provide the complainant an option to choose
the place of jurisdiction. But because this verdict is by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay so it is not binding to all and that is why restricted
within the territory of the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court Of
Bombay and having no binding effect on other territories though it may
be consider by them. So till now according to Art. 141 of the Constitution
of India, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deshrath
Rupsingh Rathor is binding to all a to all and so the jurisdiction
restricted to where the drawer bank is located.
Bibliography
Articles-
Books-
1. S.N. Gupta, Dishonour of Cheques: Liability-Civil & Criminal,
Sixth edition 2010, Universal law publishing co. Pvt. Ltd.
2. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Government Central
Press, 1881
3. Avatar Singh Modern Banking: Theory And Practice,
Cases-