Judgement IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 2009 Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod …..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2077 of 2009]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2112 of 2009]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2117 of 2009]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1596-1600 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1308-1312 of 2009]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1601 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3762 of 2012]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3943 of 2012]; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1603 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3944 of 2012]; AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1604 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.59 of 2013]. J U D G M E N T VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. These Appeals raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance pertaining to Court’s territorial jurisdiction concerning criminal complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’). This is amply adumbrated by the Orders dated 3.11.2009 in I.A.No.1 in CC 15974/2009 of the three-Judge Bench presided over by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam which SLP is also concerned with the interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act, and wherein the Bench after issuing notice on the petition directed that it be posted before the three-Judge Bench. PRECEDENTS The earliest and the most often quoted decision of this Court relevant to the present conundrum is K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 wherein a two-Judge Bench has, inter alia, interpreted Section 138 of the NI Act to indicate that, “the offence under Section 138 can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (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.” The provisions of Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) have also been dealt with in detail. Furthermore, Bhaskaran in terms draws a distinction between ‘giving of notice’ and ‘receiving of notice’. This is for the reason that clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act postulates a demand being made by the payee or the holder in due course of the dishonoured cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer thereof. While doing so, the question of the receipt of the notice has also been cogitated upon. The issuance and the receipt of the notice is significant because in a subsequent judgment of a Coordinate Bench, namely, Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 emphasis has been laid on the receipt of the notice, inter alia, holding that the cause of action cannot arise by any act of omission or commission on the part of the ‘accused’, which on a holistic reading has to be read as ‘complainant’. It appears that Harman transacted business out of Chandigarh only, where the Complainant also maintained an office, although its Head Office was in Delhi. Harman issued the cheque to the Complainant at Chandigarh; Harman had its bank account in Chandigarh alone. It is unclear where the Complainant presented the cheque for encashment but it issued the Section 138 notice from Delhi. In those circumstances, this Court had observed that the only question for consideration was “whether sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action for taking cognizance under the NI Act.” It then went on to opine that the proviso to this Section “imposes certain further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can be taken.” We respectfully agree with this statement of law and underscore that in criminal jurisprudence there is a discernibly demarcated difference between the commission of an offence and its cognizance leading to prosecution. The Harman approach is significant and sounds a discordant note to the Bhaskaran ratio. Harman also highlights the reality that Section 138 of the NI Act is being rampantly misused so far as territorial jurisdiction for trial of the Complaint is concerned. With the passage of time equities have therefore transferred from one end of the pendulum to the other. It is now not uncommon for the Courts to encounter the issuance of a notice in compliance with clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act from a situs which bears no connection with the Accused or with any facet of the transaction between the parties, leave aside the place where the dishonour of the cheque has taken place. This is also the position as regards the presentation of the cheque, dishonour of which is then pleaded as the territorial platform of the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Harman, in fact, duly heeds the absurd and stressful situation, fast becoming common-place where several cheques signed by the same drawer are presented for encashment and requisite notices of demand are also despatched from different places. It appears to us that justifiably so at that time, the conclusion in Bhaskaran was influenced in large measure by curial compassion towards the unpaid payee/holder, whereas with the passage of two decades the manipulative abuse of territorial jurisdiction has become a recurring and piquant factor. The liberal approach preferred in Bhaskaran now calls for a stricter interpretation of the statute, precisely because of its misemployment so far as choice of place of suing is concerned. These are the circumstances which have propelled us to minutely consider the decisions rendered by two-Judge Benches of this Court. It is noteworthy that the interpretation to be imparted to Section 138 of the NI Act also arose before a three-Judge Bench in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609 close on the heels of Bhaskaran. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, the dishonoured cheque had been presented for encashment by the Complainant/holder in his bank within the statutory period of six months but by the time it reached the drawer’s bank the aforementioned period of limitation had expired. The question before the Court was whether the bank within the postulation of Section 138 read with Sections 3 and 72 of the NI Act was the drawee bank or the collecting bank and this Court held that it was the former. It was observed that “non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank within the period specified in the Section would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, who otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. A combined reading of Sections 3, 72 and 138 of the NI Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable.” Clearly, and in our considered opinion rightly, the Section had been rendered accused-centric’. This decision clarifies that the place where a complainant may present the cheque for encashment would not confer or create territorial jurisdiction, and in this respect runs counter to the essence of Bhaskaran which paradoxically, in our opinion, makes actions of the Complainant an integral nay nuclear constituent of the crime itself. The principle of precedence should promptly and precisely be paraphrased. A co-ordinate Bench is bound to follow the previously published view; it is certainly competent to add to the precedent to make it logically and dialectically compelling. However, once a decision of a larger Bench has been delivered it is that decision which mandatorily has to be applied; whereas a Co-ordinate Bench, in the event that it finds itself unable to agree with an existing ratio, is competent to recommend the precedent for reconsideration by referring the case to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. Indubitably, there are a number of decisions by two- Judge Benches on Section 138 of the NI Act, the majority of which apply Bhaskaran without noting or distinguishing on facts Ishar Alloy. In our opinion, it is imperative for the Court to diligently distill and then apply the ratio of a decision; and the view of a larger Bench ought not to be disregarded. Inasmuch as the three-Judge Bench in Ishar Alloy has categorically stated that for criminal liability to be attracted, the subject cheque has to be presented to the bank on which it is drawn within the prescribed period, Bhaskaran has been significantly whittled down if not overruled. Bhaskaran has also been drastically diluted by Harman inasmuch as it has given primacy to the service of a notice on the Accused instead of its mere issuance by the Complainant. In Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh (2005) 4 SCC 417, another two- Judge Bench held that upon a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act being issued, a subsequent presentation of a cheque and its dishonour would not create another ‘cause of action’ which could set the Section 138 machinery in motion. In that view, if the period of limitation had run out, a fresh notice of demand was bereft of any legal efficacy. SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (1999) 4 SCC 567 was applied in which the determination was that since the requisite notice had been despatched by FAX on 26.6.1996 the limitation for filing the Section 138 Complaint expired on 26.7.1996. What is interesting is the observation that “four constituents of Section 138 are required to be proved to successfully prosecute the drawer of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act” (emphasis supplied). It is also noteworthy that instead of the five Bhaskaran concomitants, only four have been spelt out in the subsequent judgment in Prem Chand. The commission of a crime was distinguished from its prosecution which, in our considered opinion, is the correct interpretation of the law. In other words, the four or five concomitants of the Section have to be in existence for the initiation as well as the successful prosecution of the offence, which offence however comes into existence as soon as subject cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank. Another two-Judge Bench in Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed (2008) 13 SCC 77 speaking through Pasayat J this time around applied Bhaskaran and concluded that since the Section 138 notice was issued from and replied to Mangalore, Courts in that city possessed territorial jurisdiction. As already noted above, this view is not reconcilable with the later decision of Harman. The two-Judge Bench decision in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. (2006) 3 SCC 658 requires to be discussed in some detail. A Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri, West Bengal for the dishonour of a number of cheques issued by the accused-company which had its headquarters in Ernakulam, Kerala where significantly the accused-company’s bank on whom the dishonoured cheques had been drawn was located. Several judgments were referred to, but not Bhaskaran. The third ingredient in Bhaskaran, i.e. the returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, was not reflected upon. Inasmuch as Mosaraf Hossain refers copiously to the cause of action having arisen in West Bengal without adverting at all to Bhaskaran, leave aside the three-Judge Bench decision in Ishar Alloy, the decision may be seen as per incuriam. Moreover, the concept of forum non conveniens has no role to play under Section 138 of the NI Act, and furthermore that it can certainly be contended by the accused-company that it was justifiable/convenient for it to initiate litigation in Ernakulam. If Bhaskaran was followed, Courts in Ernakulam unquestionably possessed territorial jurisdiction. It is, however, important to italicize that there was an unequivocal endorsement of the Bench of a previously expressed view that, “where the territorial jurisdiction is concerned the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed”. In similar vein, this Court has opined in Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. (2005) 1 SCC 617, in the context of Sections 177 to 180 CrPC that “for jurisdiction emphasis is on the place where the offence is committed.” The territorial jurisdiction conundrum which, candidly is currently in the cauldron owing to varying if not conflicting ratios, has been cogitated upon very recently by a two-Judge Bench in Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2013 titled Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma decided on 1.7.2013 and again by the same Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2013 titled Escorts Limited v. Rama Mukherjee decided on 17.09.2013. Bhaskaran was followed and Ishar Alloy and Harman were explained. In Nishant the Appellant issued a post-dated cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Guwahati in favour of complainant-respondent. It appears that the Appellant had endeavoured to create a case or rather a defence by reporting to his bank in Guwahati as well as to the local police station that ‘one cheque (corresponding to the cheque in question) was missing and hence payment should be stopped.’ The Respondent-drawer was a resident of District Bhiwani, Haryana; he presented the cheque for encashment at Canara Bank, Bhiwani but it was returned unpaid. The holder then issued a legal notice which failed to elicit the demanded sum of money corresponding to the cheque value, and thereupon followed it by the filing of a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act at Bhiwani. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide order dated 5.3.2011, concluded that the court in Bhiwani did not possess territorial jurisdiction and he accordingly returned the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. The five concomitants of Section 138 extracted in Bhaskaran, were reiterated and various paragraphs from it were reproduced by this Court. Nishant also did not follow Ishar Alloy which, as already analysed, has concluded that the second Bhaskaran concomitant, namely, presentation of cheque to the bank refers to the drawee bank and not the holder’s bank, is not primarily relevant for the determination of territorial jurisdiction. Nishant distinguished Ishar Alloy on the predication that the question of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised in that case. It is axiomatic that when a Court interprets any statutory provision, its opinion must apply to and be determinate in all factual and legal permutations and situations. We think that the dictum in Ishar Alloy is very relevant and conclusive to the discussion in hand. It also justifies emphasis that Ishar Alloy is the only case before us which was decided by a three-Judge Bench and, therefore, was binding on all smaller Benches. We ingeminate that it is the drawee Bank and not the Complainant’s Bank which is postulated in the so-called second constituent of Section 138 of the NI Act, and it is this postulate that spurs us towards the conclusion that we have arrived at in the present Appeals. There is also a discussion of Harman to reiterate that the offence under Section 138 is complete only when the five factors are present. It is our considered view, which we shall expound upon, that the offence in the contemplation of Section 138 of the NI Act is the dishonour of the cheque alone, and it is the concatenation of the five concomitants of that Section that enable the prosecution of the offence in contradistinction to the completion/commission of the offence. We have also painstakingly perused Escorts Limited which was also decided by the Nishant two-Judge Bench. Previous decisions were considered, eventually leading to the conclusion that since the concerned cheque had been presented for encashment at New Delhi, its Metropolitan Magistrate possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the subject Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Importantly, in a subsequent order, in FIL Industries Ltd. v. Imtiyaz Ahmed Bhat passed on 12th August 2013, it was decided that the place from where the statutory notice had emanated would not of its own have the consequence of vesting jurisdiction upon that place. Accordingly, it bears repetition that the ratio in Bhaskaran has been drastically diluted in that the situs of the notice, one of the so-called five ingredients of Section 138, has now been held not to clothe that Court with territorial competency. The conflicting or incongruent opinions need to be resolved. JUDICIAL APPROACH ON JURISDICTION We shall take a short digression in terms of brief discussion of the approach preferred by this Court in the context of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’), which inter alia, enjoins that a suit must be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The Explanation to that Section is important; it prescribes that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office, or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. Since this provision primarily keeps the Defendant in perspective, the corporation spoken of in the Explanation, obviously refers to the Defendant. A plain reading of Section 20 of the CPC arguably allows the Plaintiff a multitude of choices in regard to where it may institute its lis, suit or action. Corporations and partnership firms, and even sole proprietorship concerns, could well be transacting business simultaneously in several cities. If sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 20 are to be interpreted disjunctively from sub-section (c), as the use of the word ‘or’ appears to permit the Plaintiff to file the suit at any of the places where the cause of action may have arisen regardless of whether the Defendant has even a subordinate office at that place. However, if the Defendants’ location is to form the fulcrum of jurisdiction, and it has an office also at the place where the cause of action has occurred, it has been held that the Plaintiff is precluded from instituting the suit anywhere else. Obviously, this is also because every other place would constitute a forum non conveniens. This Court has harmonised the various hues of the conundrum of the place of suing in several cases and has gone to the extent of laying down that it should be courts endeavour to locate the place where the cause of action has substantially arisen and reject others where it may have incidentally arisen. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 = (1991) 4 SCC 270 prescribes that if the Defendant-corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, litigation must be instituted at that place alone, regardless of the amplitude of options postulated in Section 20 of the CPC. We need not dilate on this point beyond making a reference to ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 and South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 443. We are alive to the possible incongruities that are fraught in extrapolating decisions relating to civil law onto criminal law, which includes importing the civil law concept of “cause of action” to criminal law which essentially envisages the place where a crime has been committed empowers the Court at that place with jurisdiction. In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640 this Court had to consider the powers of High Courts under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Noting the presence of the phrase “cause of action” therein it was clarified that since some events central to the investigation of the alleged crime asseverated in the Complaint had taken place in Mumbai and especially because the fundamental grievance was the falsity of the Complaint filed in Shillong, the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court was unquestionably available. The infusion of the concept of ‘cause of action’ into the criminal dispensation has led to subsequent confusion countenanced in High Courts. It seems to us that Bhaskaran allows multiple venues to the Complainant which runs counter to this Court’s preference for simplifying the law. Courts are enjoined to interpret the law so as to eradicate ambiguity or nebulousness, and to ensure that legal proceedings are not used as a device for harassment, even of an apparent transgressor of the law. Law’s endeavour is to bring the culprit to book and to provide succour for the aggrieved party but not to harass the former through vexatious proceedings. Therefore, precision and exactitude are necessary especially where the location of a litigation is concerned. RELEVANT PROVISIONS The provisions which will have to be examined and analysed are reproduced for facility of reference : 1 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 2 “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (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 thirty 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. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 142. Cognizance of offences.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138; Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.” Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (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. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES The XVIIth fasciculus of the Negotiable Instruments Act containing Sections 138 to 142 was introduced into the statute in 1988. The avowed intendment of the amendment was to enhance the acceptability of cheques. It was based on the Report of the Committee on Banking Laws by Dr. Rajamannar, submitted in 1975, which suggested, inter alia, penalizing the issuance of cheque without sufficient funds. The Minister of Finance had assuaged apprehensions by arguing that safeguards for honest persons had been incorporated in the provisions, viz., (i) the cheque should have been issued in discharge of liability; (ii) the cheque should be presented within its validity period; (iii) a Notice had to be sent by the Payee demanding payment within 15 days of receiving notice of dishonour; (iv) the drawer was allowed to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice; (v) Complaint was to be made within one month of the cause of action arising; (vi) no Court inferior to that of MM or JMFC was to try the offence. The Finance Minister had also stated that the Court had discretion whether the Drawer would be imprisoned or/and fined. Detractors, however, pointed out that the IPC already envisioned criminal liability for cheque-bouncing where dishonest or fraudulent intention or mens rea on part of the Drawer was evident, namely, cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust etc. Therefore, there was no justification to make the dishonour of cheques a criminal offence, ignoring factors like illiteracy, indispensable necessities, honest/innocent mistake, bank frauds, bona fide belief, and/or unexpected attachment or freezing of account in any judicial proceedings as it would bring even honest persons within the ambit of Section 138 NI Act. The possibility of abusing the provision as a tool of harassment could also not be ruled out. Critics also decried the punishment for being harsh; that civil liability can never be converted into criminal liability; that singling out cheques out of all other negotiable instruments would be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Critics contended that there was insufficient empirical enquiry into statutes or legislation in foreign jurisdictions criminalizing the dishonour of cheques and statistics had not been made available bearing out that criminalization would increase the acceptability of cheque. The Minister of Finance was not entirely forthright when he stated in Parliament that the drawer was also allowed sufficient opportunity to say whether the dishonour was by mistake. It must be borne in mind that in the U.K. deception and dishonesty are key elements which require to be proved. In the USA, some States have their own laws, requiring fraudulent intent or knowledge of insufficient funds to be made good. France has criminalized and subsequently decriminalized the dishonour except in limited circumstances. Instead, it provides for disqualification from issuing cheques, a practice which had been adopted in Italy and Spain also. We have undertaken this succinct study mindful of the fact that Parliamentary debates have a limited part to play in interpretation of statutes, the presumption being that Legislators have the experience, expertise and language skills to draft laws which unambiguously convey their intentions and expectations for the enactments. What is palpably clear is that Parliament was aware that they were converting civil liability into criminal content inter alia by the deeming fiction of culpability in terms of the pandect comprising Section 138 and the succeeding Sections, which severely curtail defences to prosecution. Parliament was also aware that the offence of cheating etc., already envisaged in the IPC, continued to be available.
Posted on: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 02:36:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015