Kirti Dal Udyog vs Bhanwarlal Ramchandra Chandak

L. Manoharan, J.—No. 1, Shri V.M. Deshpande, on behalf of Shri V.C. Daga, contended that the offence u/s 138 of the Act would be complete only on the failure of the drawer to pay the amount on receipt of the notice of dishonour within the time stipulated u/s 138 of the Act. Therefore, if, in a given circumstances, the payment as per the notice of dishonour had to be made at the place where the complainant is carrying on business and the drawer fails to make the payment, then cause of action would also arise on such failure to make the payment at that place. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the complainant on the decision of this Court in Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar, . In that decision, the decision of the Kerala High Court in P.K. Muraleedharan Vs. C.K. Pareed and Another, is relied on by the learned Judges of this Court who have observed that:

...It would be perfectly valid and reasonable to hold, therefore, that the aggrieved party, viz. the complainant is full justified in approaching the local Court having jurisdiction over the area where the payment was to be made to him in the final instance. Having defaulted in the first instance, the law casts a special obligation on the drawer of the cheque to make amends by tendering the payment to the payee and the correct approach in such a situation would be to construe the offence having been complete at the place where the payment ought to have been tendered to the drawee but was wrongfully not done....

Therefore, it is clear that the offence is complete only on failure to tender the amount in response to the notice of dishonour within the stipulated time and the Court within whose jurisdiction the said tender had to be made will also get the jurisdiction to try the case.

Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. S. S. Joshi vehemently contended that there being no statement even in the notice or even in the complaint that the payment had to be made at Wardha, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha will not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On behalf of the non-applicant No. 1, it was argued that since Section 138 of the Act does not require or enjoin the drawee who issues a notice of dishonour to specify the place where the payment is to be made, the learned Counsel for the applicant cannot make such an argument against the complainant.

The fact that a notice was issued from Wardha is alleged in the complaint. The complainant as described at page 16 of the paper book is ''Bhanwarlal son of Ramchandraji Chandak, Proprietor of Vijay Traders, Wardha.'' Once it is admitted that the notice was issued from Wardha by the aforesaid complainant, the inevitable inference is that the tender of the amount should be at Wardha. When so looked at and understood, I do not find any reason to accept the contentions of Mr. S.S. Joshi that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. When that is the position, the conclusion is inevitable that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, also has got jurisdiction to try the said complaint. The criminal application is, therefore, not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the criminal application fails and the same is dismissed.