Criminal Appeal No. 1917 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7619 of 2011) and Criminal Appeal No. 1918 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7772 of 2011). Case: Suku Vs Jagdish. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Appeal No. 1917 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7619 of 2011) and Criminal Appeal No. 1918 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7772 of 2011)|
|Party Name:||Suku Vs Jagdish|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Vinay Kumar Shailendra, Party-in-Person, Subhro Sanyal, Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C. Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra and Praveen Agrawal, Advs. and For Respondents: Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venketesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam Jain, Vaishali R., Shailender ...|
|Judges:||T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan, JJ.|
|Issue:||Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138|
|Judgement Date:||September 04, 2014|
T.S. Thakur., J.
These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th June, 2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court has held that the presentation of a cheque by the complainant in a bank at Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam, Kerala did not confer jurisdiction upon Courts at Kayamkulam to entertain a complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and try the accused persons for the offence.
It is not in dispute that the cheque in question was issued by the Respondent on Syndicate Bank, Gokaran branch in Karnataka which was presented for collection by the complainant at Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam, Kerala but dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant then filed complaint at Kayamkulam in the State of Kerala which were returned by the Magistrate to be filed before the proper Court as the Court at Kayamkulam, Kerala, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The matter was taken up before the High Court by the complainants in Crl. M.C. Nos. 514 of 2011 and 1653 of 2011 which the High Court has dismissed by the impugned order holding that the presentation of the cheque to a Bank in Kerala would not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Kerala Court. The High Court has in support of that view relied upon the decision of this Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this Court...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL