|
19. JURIDICTION/CAUSE OF ACTION/LIMITATION
|
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 201, Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, Section 3(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed in Special Court - Jurisdiction challenged - Special Court reached a finding that it has no jurisdiction - Accused discharged - Held, complaint should have been returned - No observation could be made which could be understood as order on merits - Impugned order that accused stood discharged set aside - Fresh complaint filed before Court of Magistrate will be deemed to be a complaint which has been returned and filed in proper Court - Appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 470 Cr.P.C. (Canbank Fin. Services Vs Pallav Sheth) 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 21 (S.C.)
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 201 - Court having no jurisdiction - Complaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court instead of ordering acquittal. (Varghese Vs C.K.Ramani) 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (Kerala) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2755
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 249, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 2(h) - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed for non prosecution on 21.9.1991 - On same day restoration application filed - Complaint restored - Revision against - Revision allowed by Sessions Judge - Thereafter complainant filing appeal against order dt.21.9.1991 - Held, conduct of complainant not bona fide and in good faith in prosecuting the matter and having taken chance by contesting application filed by accused - Delay in filing appeal not condoned. (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nek Kumar Porwal & Anr.) 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (Bom.) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 386, 357(3) - Judicial Magistrate of First Class trying a case under Section 138 cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - High Court while convicting accused in the same case cannot impose fine exceeding the said limit - However, Magistrate can resort to Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to alleviate the grievance of the complainant. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688
Section 138 - Cause of action to file complaint arises only after expiry of 15 days from service of statutory notice period - Complaint filed within that 15 days period - Held, complaint is filed before cause of action had arisen. (Dr.Kanchana Kamalnathan Vs Nagaraj) 1995(1)CIVIL COURT CASES 565 (Madras) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0123 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0959 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0366
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Appellant gave four cheques on 24.12.1991 to 27.3.1992 - For payment of loss suffered by Standard Chartered Bank arising out of transactions in securities all cheques dishonoured on ground "Not arranged for" - Notice of demand served - The appellant did not pay in prescribed period - Complaint filed before Special Court - Transaction being within the statutory period, Special Court has the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Hiten P.Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 617 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make payment within 15 days from date of receipt of notice or refusal to accept notice - Complaint filed within seven days from date of refusal to accept notice - Held, complaint is premature as complainant had no cause of action on date of complaint. (Ashok Hegde Vs Jathin V.Attawan) 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (Karnataka) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0773 : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0433 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0530 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0123 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0445 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3691 : 1997 (3) CCR 0776
Section 138 - In response to the notice the drawee sent the payment as per draft and the payee refused to accept the same - Complaint and summoning order quashed as complaint is filed to harass the accused. (Jai Gopal Khanna Vs J.K.Engg.Works) 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0112 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0355 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0032 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0252 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565
Section 138 - Jurisdiction - Components of the offence are (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 - 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. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688
Section 138 - Jurisdiction - Parties entered into hire purchase agreement at Chennai and post-dated cheques issued at Chennai - Drawee company having its Head Office at Calcutta - Notice demanding payment issued at Calcutta - Held, Calcutta Court has jurisdiction - Prosecution at Calcutta validly launched - Debtor should follow the creditor. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (Calcutta) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505
Section 138 - Jurisdiction - Question has to be decided on the basis of averments made in the complaint. (A.Chinnaswami Vs M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company) 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (Bombay) : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0505 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0215 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0478 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0395 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0409 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0584 : 1997 (3) MAH LJ 0335
Section 138 - Jurisdiction - The Court from where the notice of demand was sent has the jurisdiction - It is obligatory on the part of the debtor to find creditor where he is. (Thapar Milk Products Vs Bharat Diary Udyog) 1999(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0355
Sections 138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. (Viswadhan Vs Surendran) 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (Kerala) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
Sections 138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate) 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (Kerala) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717
Section 138, 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of limitation - Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on 15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368
Section 138, 142 - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place 'M' and cheque presented for collection at place 'M' - Complaint filed at place 'T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No illegality - Court at place 'T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam) 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (Madras) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467
Section 138, 142 -Jurisdiction - Neither ingredients of the offence specified out nor disclosed as to how the Court at place 'M' has jurisdiction - Complainant and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa)1994(1)CIVIL COURT CASES 462(P&H)
Sections 139, 138 - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) = 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250