Summary
Six cheques issued for the purchase of a crusher plant were dishonoured; the payee presented two through its Nagpur bank and filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at Nagpur, and four through its New Delhi bank and filed four complaints at the Dwarka courts. On the drawer's petition under Section 406 CrPC the Supreme Court transferred the Nagpur cases to Dwarka: Section 142(2)(a), inserted in 2015 to undo Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, vests jurisdiction in the court where the payee's collecting bank branch is situated, so the Nagpur filings were proper, but the non obstante clause in Section 142(1), which pre-dates the amendment and concerns only the manner of taking cognizance, does not exclude the Supreme Court's power of transfer under Section 406 CrPC; as all six cases arise from one transaction, common adjudication avoids contradictory findings.
Issues
- Whether the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with the exclusive territorial jurisdiction conferred by Section 142(2), excludes the Supreme Court's power under Section 406 CrPC to transfer complaints under Section 138 pending in one State to a court in another State.
Provisions considered
- Sections 138, 142(1), 142(2)(a) and 142A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 142(2)(a), inserted by Amendment Act 26 of 2015 in response to Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, fixes trial in the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the payee's bank where the cheque was delivered for collection is situated, as affirmed in Bridgestone India; the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) existed in the original section and only governs how cognizance is taken of an offence whose prosecution is postponed by the provisos to Section 138. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)
- Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases remains intact for offences under Section 138, as exercised in A.E. Premanand where cases arising from a single transaction were brought before one court, if expedient for the ends of justice. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Held
- Institution of the first two complaints at Nagpur accorded with Section 142(2), but the contention that Section 142(1) overrides Section 406 CrPC cannot be countenanced; since the six complaints pertain to the same transaction and four are already pending at Dwarka, transfer of the two Nagpur cases there is convenient for the parties and witnesses and obviates contradictory findings. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Transfer petitions allowed; SCC Nos. 25668 and 26875 of 2019 pending before the 22nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and the 20th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur transferred to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, to be tried along with Complaint Case Nos. 42489 of 2019, 1464, 7596 and 4094 of 2020.