S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Territorial jurisdiction of a court to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") is in question in this appeal. The said question arose in the following circumstances : Appellants and respondent entered into a business transaction. Appellant is a resident of Chandigarh. He carries on business in Chandigarh. The cheque in question admittedly was issued at Chandigarh. Complainant also has a branch office at Chandigarh although his Head Office is said to be at Delhi. It is stated that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh. However, it is in dispute as to whether the said cheque was sent for collection to Delhi. The cheque was dishonoured also at Chandigarh. However, the complainant-respondent issued a notice upon the appellant asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi. Admittedly, the said notice was served upon the respondent at Chandigarh. On failure on the part of the appellant to pay the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the said letter, a complaint petition was filed at Delhi. In the complaint petition, it was stated : "10. That the complainant presented aforesaid cheque for encashment through its banker Citi Bank NA. The Punjab and Sind Bank, the banker of the accused returned the said cheque unpaid with an endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer" vide their memo dated 30.12.2000. The aforesaid memo dated 30.12.2000 was received by the complainant on 3.1.2001. 11. Upon dishonour of the above-mentioned cheque, the complainant sent notice dated 11.1.2001 in terms of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the accused persons demanding payment of aforesaid cheque amount at Delhi. The accused persons were served with said notice by registered A/D. 12. By the said notice the accused persons were called upon to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within 15 days of the receipt of said notice. 13. Despite the service of notice dated 11.1.2001 the accused persons have failed and/or neglected to pay amount of aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period of 15 days after the service of the notice. 14. Accused persons clandestinely/deliberately and with mala fide intention and by failing to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque within the stipulated period have committed the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 15. The complainant further submit that the complaint is being filed within 1 month from the date of expiring of the 15 days grace time given under the notice for payment of said amount. 16. This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as complainant carries on its business at Delhi. The demand notice dated 11.1.2001 was issued from Delhi and the amount of cheque was payable at Delhi and because accused failed to make the payment of amount of said cheque within statutory period of 15 days from receipt of notice."
(3.) Cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant by the learned Judge. Questioning the jurisdiction of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, an application was filed which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in terms of an order dated 3.2.2003 stating : "2. The main grievance of the accused is that the accused persons, as well as the complainant are carrying their business at Chandigarh. The cheque in question was given by the accused to the complainant in Chandigarh, and it was present to their banker at Chandigarh. Only notice was given by the complainant to the accused persons, from Delhi. That the same was served on the accused admittedly, at Chandigarh and that both the parties are carrying out their business also at Chandigarh. Therefore, it is contended that it would amount to absurdity if the complaint of the complainant is entertained, in Delhi, in view of the case law reported in AIR 1999 SC 3782, K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar, and I am of the considered opinion that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, as admittedly the notice was sent by the complainant to the accused persons from Delhi, and the complainant is having its registered office at Delhi, and that they are carrying out the business at Delhi. Admittedly, it is also evident from the record that accused allegedly failed to make the payment at Delhi, as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the complainant at Delhi.";