Smt. Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed

¶6In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an & Anr., [19971 7 sec 510, it was inter alia observed as follows:

"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 ,...._ qua 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. (a)-(c) * * *

(d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

¶16Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. ...... In other words, the complainant can chose 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

¶17Th~ more importantpoint to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice s(:mt I by the complainant to the accused was returned as "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_ rece 1ipt of information by him fr~m the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and A;...;

(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 r.ourse of the cheque.

within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice."

¶7As was noted in K. Bhaskar's case (supra) the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the ,..,, concatentation 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.

¶8It 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.

¶9In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. -y

¶10The appeal is dismissed.