M/S. K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. & ORS.versusGLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.

                       [2014] 9 S.C.R. 518


A          M/S. K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. & ORS.
                                 V.
            GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.
              (Criminal Appeal No.1914 of 2014)
                      SEPTEMBER 04, 2014
B
           rr.s. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
                       C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

        Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Complaint
C under - Dishonpur of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction upon
  courts to entertain the complaint u/s. 138 where cheque
  presented for collection - Held: Presentation of a cheque for
  collection on the drawee bank or issue of a notice from a place
  of the choice of the complainant would not by themselves
D confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where cheque is presented
  for collection or the default notice issued demanding payment
  from the drawer of the cheque.
       In the instant appeal, the issue pertains to the
  jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the complaint as
E regards the dishonour of cheque.
       In criminal applications, the High Court relying upon
  the case of*K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an, held
  that the Magistrate in Bandra had the jurisdiction to
F entertain the complaint as the cheque had been
  presented before a bank at Bombay, the said fact being
  sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to
  entertain the complaints and try cases. The order passed
  by the revisional court that the Magistrate did not have
G the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint was set aside
  and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial
  of the cases. Hence the instant appeals.
       · Allowing the appeals, the Court

H                               518
 K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. v. GLOBAL TRADE                  519
               FINANCE LTD.
     HELD: A plain reading of the orders passed by the            A
High Court would show that the judgment proceeds
entirely on the authority of the decision of this Court in
*K. Bhaskaran's case which has been reversed by this
Court in **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
and Anr. This Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case            B
held that presentation of a cheque for collection on the
drawee bank or issue of a notice from a place of the
choice of the complainant would not by themselves
confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where cheque is
presented for collection or the default notice issued             c
demanding payment from the drawer of the cheque.
Following the said decision, the High Court was wrong
in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions
Judge. The order passed by the High Court is set aside
and the order passed by the Revisional Court is restored.
                                                                  0
[Para 4, 5] [521-D-G]
    Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National
Panasonic India Private Limited 2008 (17) SCR 487 : (2009)
1 SCC 720; * K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an.
1999 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 271: (1999) 7 SCC 510 - referred E
to.
       **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on.
                      Case Law Reference:                         F
      2008 (17) SCR 487          Referred to      Para 3
      1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271    Referred to     Para 3, 4
      (2014) 9 SCALE 97          Relied on        Para 4.
                                                                  G
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1914 of 2014.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2010 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bomaby in Criminal Application No.
2760 of 2010.                                                     H
    520        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A                                  WITH
    Criminal Appeal Nos. 1915 and 1916 of 2014.
       Vinay Kumar Shailendra, (In Person), Subhro Sanyal,
  Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C.
B Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish
  Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra, Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant.
         Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venketesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam
    Jain, Vaishali R., Shailender Bhardwaj, Subramonium Prasad,
    Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.
c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th
  September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
D Bombay whereby Crl. Application Nos.1491, 2759 and 2760
  of 2010 have been allowed and the orders passed by the
  Magistrate set aside and the matter remitted back to the
  Magistrate with the direction that the criminal complaints filed
  by the complainants-respondents herein shall be disposed of
E expeditiously.
         3. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
    Instrument Act, 1880 appear to have been filed by th~
    respondent-company in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate~
F   Sandra w~ich were entertained by the Magistrate and process
    issued against the accused persons. Revision applications
    were then filed before the, Court of Sessions at Bombay
    challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the
    complaints. The Revisional Court relying upon Harman
G Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic
  India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 held that the
  Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the ,
  complaints. The orders passed by the Magistrate were set
  aside and the complaints directed to be returned for

H
    K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. v. GLOBAL TRADE                  521
            FINANCE LTD. [T.S. IHAKUR, J.]
  presentation before the competent Court. Aggrieved by the said       A
  orders the complainant preferred Criminal Applications
  No.1491, 2759 and 2760 of 2010 before the High Court who
  relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v.
  Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) 7 SCC 510 and three other
  decisions of the Bombay High Court held that the Magistrate          B
  had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cheque had
  been presented before a bank at Bombay which fact was,
  according to the High Court, sufficient to confer jurisdiction
  upon,-the Magistrate to entertain the complaints and try the
  cases. The orders passed by the Revisional Court were                c
  accordingly set aside and the Magistrate directed to proceed
  with the trial of the cases expeditiously as already noticed. The
. present special leave petitions have been filed by the accused
  persons assailing the view taken by the High Ccurt.
      4. A plain reading of the orders passed by the High Court        D
 would show that the judgment proceeds entirely on the authority
 of the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra).
 That decision has been reversed by this Court in Dashrath
 Rupsingh Rathod v. ·State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2014) 9
 SCALE 97. This Court has, on an elaborate consideration of            E
 the provision of Section 138 and the law on the subject, held
 that presentation of a cheque for collection on the drawee bank
 or issue of a notice from a place of the choice of the
 complainant would not by themselves confer jurisdiction upon
 the Courts where cheque is presented for collection or the            F
 default notice issued demanding payment from the drawer of
 the cheque. Following the said decision we have no hesitation
 in holding that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the
 order passed by the Sessions Judge.
      5. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the          G
 order passed by the High Court and restore those passed by
 the Revisional Court. The parties are, however, left to bear their
 ovtn costs.
  Nidhi Jain                                        Appeals allowed.
                                                                       H