LAWS(SC)-2014-8-5

DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 01, 2014
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Appellant
V/S
State of Maharashtra And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. These Appeals raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance pertaining to Court's territorial jurisdiction concerning criminal complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act').

(2.) The earliest and the most often quoted decision of this Court relevant to the present conundrum is K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 7 SCC 510 wherein a two-Judge Bench has, inter alia, interpreted Section 138 of the NI Act to indicate that, "the offence under Section 138 can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice." The provisions of Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC') have also been dealt with in detail. Furthermore, Bhaskaran in terms draws a distinction between 'giving of notice' and 'receiving of notice'. This is for the reason that clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act postulates a demand being made by the payee or the holder in due course of the dishonoured cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer thereof.

(3.) The issuance and the receipt of the notice is significant because in a subsequent judgment of a Coordinate Bench, namely, Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 2009 1 SCC 720 emphasis has been laid on the receipt of the notice, inter alia, holding that the cause of action cannot arise by any act of omission or commission on the part of the 'accused', which on a holistic reading has to be read as 'complainant'.