* 1 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2011 Golden Chance Beer Co.Ltd and Ors. .......Applicants V/S. Kirtikumar P. Patil & Ors. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the applicants. None for respondent no.1. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for respondent no.2-State in Revn. 10/2011. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for respondent no.2-State in Revn. 11/2011. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the above two Revision Applications which challenge the concurrent finding of conviction * 2 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 of the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the punishment imposed upon them. Both the applications arise out of identical set of facts and are between the same parties and therefore they are being decided by this common order. 2. The applicant had issued 4 cheques for the total amount of Rs.15,60,000/- to the respondent by way of return of the security deposit taken by them from the respondent of Rs.13,20,000/- and interest thereon of Rs.2,40,000/-. All the four cheques when presented for payment were dishonoured on the ground funds “ insufficient After service of the statutory notice upon the ” applicants and after its non-compliance, respondent no.1 filed two proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2009 the applicants were convicted. Applicant no.1 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and applicant no.2 to suffer simple imprisonment for 8 months. The applicants were directed to pay compensation of Rs.13,60,000/- in four equal instalments of * 3 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 Rs.3,40,000/- each with the first instalment being payable on 4th April, 2009. The applicants challenged the judgment and order of their conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Kalyan, Thane. The Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 1st January, 2011 confirming the conviction. 3. Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that there are two gross errors in the impugned judgment and order. Firstly, that the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint and secondly that the Court at Kalyan had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The cheques in question had been issued by the applicants in the name of M/s. Shashank Enterprises, Engineers and Contractors. Respondent no.1 filed proceedings as the proprietor of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. According to the applicants, there was no material produced whatsoever before the Court to show that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. Mr. Arjunwadkar, refers to the cross-examination of respondent no.1 on this aspect. In the * 4 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 cross-examination, respondent no.1 stated that he carries on construction business in the name of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. He stated that he pays the taxes payable by him in the name of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. He denied the suggestion that Shashank Enterprises is a partnership firm with one Mr. Patil and one Mr. Bora as its partners. He has, however, admitted that he had not produced any document to show that he is the proprietor of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. There is a document on record in the form of agreement dated 22nd September, 1996 executed between applicant no.1 and M/s. Shashank Enterprises for construction of factory plant and administrative block for applicant no.1. Execution of this agreement is not disputed by the applicants. M/s. Shashank Enterprises had paid security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- to the applicants for due performance of the agreement. Later on, admittedly, the agreement came to be cancelled and the applicants became liable to refund the amount of security deposit to M/s. Shashank Enterprises. The recital to the agreement describes applicant no.1 as the owner and M/s. Shashank Enterprises as “ ” * 5 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 the contractor . It has been signed by applicant no.2 as the “ ” “ owner and respondent no.1 as the contractor . In this ” “ ” circumstance, it is not open for the applicants to contend that respondent no.1 is not the proprietor of M/s. Shashank Enterprises. Also, the agreement nowhere describes M/s. Shashank Enterprises as a partnership concern. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the first argument advanced on behalf of the applicants. 4. As regards the second contention, both the courts have held that the statutory notice in the matter had been sent from Dombivali where the registered office of respondent no.1 is situate. Both the Courts have held that though the advocate for respondent no.1 is from Thane since the notice had been sent for and on behalf of respondent no.1, it must be taken that the notice had been sent from Dombivali and as such the Kalyan Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The Apex Court in its decision in the case K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another reported in AIR 1999 S.C. page 3762, has held that the * 6 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with concatenation of a number of acts. These are (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. Each of the above acts can decide territorial jurisdiction of the Court. If the five different acts are perpetrated in five different localities, any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can be the place of the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In the instant case, as has been held by both the Courts below that giving notice in writing to the drawer was from the place of business of respondent no.1 Therefore, the Court at Kalyan did have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Besides, as per the statutory notice, the applicants were to make the payments at the registered office of respondent no.1. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the decisions of * 7 * Cri.Revn.Applns.10 & 11.2011 11.1.2011 the Courts below. Both the Courts have taken an appropriate view of the matter. Hence, the revision applications are dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]