1 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2011 Poornawadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Maryadit Beed, through its Special Recovery Officer, (Authorized Officer) Shri.Nishikant S/o.Kamlakarrao Kulkarni, Age-46 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Suresh S/o.Lalchand Munot, Age-48 years, Occu-Business, Prop.of Arihant Agencies, 333, Sadarbazar, Camp Bhingar, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar, 2. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.M.M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.R.R.Chandak, learned counsel for respondent no.1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties. 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Beed below application Exh.27 in SCC No.265/2008 vide order dated 20/12/2010 by which the complaint lodged by the present petitioner was returned for presentation in the Court of J.M.F.C. Ahmednagar u/s. 201 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision in this writ petition can be summarized as : The petitioner is the Recovery Officer of the Co-operative Bank and the Co-operative Bank is doing the bank business having its head office at Beed. The petitioner bank is doing their bank business through their various branches spread in different districts including the branch office at Ahmednagar. Respondents have applied for loan to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- in the Branch at Ahmednagar. The loan was sanctioned by the Head Office, but was disbursed at Ahmednagar. As the loan was not repaid as per the terms, proceeding was initiated. Recovery Officer is empowered to recover the loan by the resolution passed by the petitioner bank. In the said proceeding, on 23/10/2007, cheque was issued by the first respondent in favour of recovery officer of the bank for the amount in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which was drawn on Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank, Ahmednagar. When the cheque was deposited for encashment, it was dishonoured. Intimation about the dishonour of cheque was received on 04/03/2007. It 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 appears that thereafter the recovery officer of the petitioner bank issued statutory notice, which was served on the respondent no.1, who was called upon to make the payment of the cheque bounced at Beed. The directions about repayment were not complied by the respondent no.1. It is stated that the complainant has filed complaint u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, which was numbered as SCC No.265/2008. After verification of the complainant was recorded, learned Lower Court had issued process against the first respondent for an offence punishable u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. After the first respondent appeared in the said proceeding and was released on bail, an application was moved at Exh.27 questioning about the jurisdiction of the Court at Beed to try and entertain the complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed which was later on transferred to the file of Joint Civil Judge, S.D./J.M.F.C. Beed. After hearing the parties, learned Lower Court allowed the application at Exh.27 by its order dated 20/12/2010. The said order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. In this background, I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, followed by the submissions of learned counsel for the first respondent. During the course of submissions across the bar, much stress is given on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that 5 components as described by the Apex Court in the matter of K.Bhaskaran, that to constitute an offence punishable u/s. 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 138 of the N.I.Act, these 5 components are necessary. At the same time, it is observed by the Apex Court that it is not necessary that all these 5 components to take place in one jurisdiction. But the Court, where any of the component took place, has jurisdiction to try and entertain the criminal application filed u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. Relying on the observations of this Court, it is urged that the loan was sanctioned by the Head Office at Beed by the petitioner bank in favour of respondent no.1, even though it was disbursed at the Branch Office at Ahmednagar, the fact remains that the sanctioning authority is having the head office at Beed. It is further urged that after the cheque issued by the first respondent was presented for encashment and bounced, thereafter the notice was sent by the Recovery Officer/complainant from Beed and called upon the respondent no.1 to make the payment at Beed. It is admitted fact that the loan was sanctioned by the Head Office. The statutory notice was issued from Beed and the respondent no.1 was called upon to make the payment of the cheque bounced at Beed. Hence the Criminal Court at Beed is having jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It is urged on behalf of respondent no.1 that the complaint as well as the notice is silent on the point that the loan was sanctioned by the Head Office. According to him, merely because the notice was issued by the Recovery Officer from Beed and was called upon to make the payment, it can not be inferred that the respondent no.1 was called upon to make the payment of the cheque bounced at Beed. Considering these aspects, according to me, the 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 order impugned in this writ petition is perfect and needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 5. This Court had an occasion to deal with the identical situation in Cri.Writ Petition No.442/2011 to Criminal Writ Petition No. 446/2011, which were disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 23/09/2011. In those group of matters, it is observed by this Court in para no.12,13 and 14, which read as follows : 12 In this respect, it may be useful to refer the observations of the Court in the matter of “K Bhaskaran’s” case, which are quoted in the judgment in “Shamshad Begum /s B.Mohammed” (2008) 13 SCC 77. The Apex Court, in the said judgment has observed thus - “8 As was noticed in K. Bhaskaran case, the offence under section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are components are as follows : (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. 7 In K. Bhaskaran V Sankaran Vaidhyaan Balan, it was inter alia observed as follows : (SCC P.518 6 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 Paras 15-17) “15 It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five is a sine quo non for the completion of the offence under section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : 178(d)where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas”. 16 Thus, it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Court exercising jurisdiction in one of five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under section 138 of the Act. in other words, the 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. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under section 138 of the Act. 17 The more important point to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the accused was returned as 7 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 “unclaimed”. The conditions pertaining to the notice to be given to the drawer, have been formulated and incorporated in clauses (b) to (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the Act. The said clauses are extracted below : (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice” 9 It is not necessary that the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under section 138 of the Act. 13 It may also be useful to refer the observations of the Division Bench of this Court, in “Preetha S. Babu V/s Voltas Ltd.,” 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 234. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus - “Besides, in our opinion, if the complainant calls upon the accused to make payment at a place mentioned in the demand notice and the accused 8 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 fails to make payment at that place, part of cause of action would undoubtedly arise at that place. We are supported in this view by judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court (A.S. Oka, J.) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2008 and other companion writ petitions decided on 13th and 17th of August 2009, where learned Single Judge as drawn support from Ahuja Dongre because, in Ahuja Dongre, same view is taken on this aspect. Similar view has also been taken by N.J. pandya, J. in yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd., V/s Tata SSL Ltd., and anr. 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 882 = 1998 Cri.L.J. 4350. If this test is applied to the present case, Mumbai Court will have jurisdiction.” 14 It may further be useful to refer the observations of this Court in “Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., V/s Kotak Mahindra Bank” 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 353. Wherein this Court has observed thus - “Secondly, the registered office of the Complainant is at Mumbai, the notice was issued from Mumbai and further the credit facilities were also sanctioned from Mumbai and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr. reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. (SC) 193 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Preetha Babu V/s Voltas Ltd.,” the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 3rd February 2010 in Criminal Application No. 3158 of 2010 (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 234) and judgment of the Apex Court in Samshad Begum Vs. B. Mohammad, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1355, the Bombay Court, therefore will have jurisdiction to try and decide the case.” If all these tests are applied to the undisputed facts, mentioned 9 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 above, it has to be held that the Magistrate Court of J.M.F.C.Beed has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The facts of the present writ petition are identical with the facts of that group of the writ petitions. As referred in one of the paragraph supra, one fact is made clear that the loan was sanctioned by the Head Office, the notice was issued by the Recovery Officer from the Head Office and the respondent no.1 was called upon to make the payment of the cheque bounced at Beed. Thus it is clear that the part of cause of action, to file the complaint, arose in Beed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon the observations in the matter of (1) M/S. Harman Electronics versus M/S. National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009 AIR SCW 410, (2) Mr.Jambu Kumar Jain and another versus Tata Capital Ltd., and others, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2139, (3) Prabhu Dayal Modi versus Euro Developers Pvt.Ltd., and another, 2010(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 801, (4) Pradipkumar Hukumchand Khiwansara versus Devgiri Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., 2011 All MR (Cri) 2885. In view of the view taken by this Court in its judgment dated 23/09/2011 (cited supra), it is not permissible for this Court to take the contrary view. 7. Considering all these observations and the consistent view taken by this Court as referred in paragraph supra, it is to be held 10 Criminal Writ Petition No.66 of 2011 that the Criminal Court at Beed is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the petitioner. In the premise, the impugned order dated 20/12/2010 requires to be quashed and set aside. 8. Rule thus made absolute. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.w.p.66-11