Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd. & Ors v. Destination of the World (Suncontinent) P.Ltd

PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, J. For orders, see Cri.M.C.No.1056/2011. SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 mm u u (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. :!-;: ':Yo + Trut' r.:: r-_:: :r_· p·,·· n 11\lt rc·i·t<·ii 11-_],""iff::.. 1: IJ " ! !! -) t_ .1 I. •. I , -· •J • t , , v t· l .. .2r..7 11 ,:,:; it [) 1"'0!70f fn't.P(V on' 2 !stS-:-ec;·t.on7 he:-:_--70 :. 7 -"- .. I ''-'• I iU• !\!II " c· rc:: -- ·] __ !D/ .L. tU; _It_·:_: I :J r\CC \t-\_1 i C>(

¶1·:L. r ope ()( \,) :·::;ugh: Petitioners upta, w!tl' Zave1·i, lf\llr.Gaurav /\ ('J _::; '"'\j\•' :) I d [\,Iii r Tri , .. _Inn::> \i ':), (\ :::.· . .._) I I ,_! l..J GJ ' I! .. · . ' !' ) -: •I ( 01 .- L-,1 Aga i"'V\.'d!, vocates \/2f"'S·l.!S DESTIN/\T!CN Jt-: iHE (SUBCONTH\1 ) ;_ ..... t Trl U] h: r .f-1 n i ndva a I hotra, t..dvoccrte f" P.l N1 r ] ··" c::: r" 0 l! " _1.,_::.:.__:'-_J_J.:_ L" .l.. .. _L .IL r H r.:; E c· A, \ ! , c; & -ro ,.. n .J ,, L: 1!-\. J l--. \1 i= I__ I _") L 6( ORS. " . . .. . C} e r-·s :T:.rg\1· r " '•J ; L: r . _/_), cr \f (= dl t e \"1-Ith 1·· n.-,:·;n 7:::.,r,:::.d r lt , 1 , I ;._Q v .._, . ,\._o·\._1 '-.;.! :._'., Aga rvlfai: a r,d r.-Ta ll't'rta'y a \f"Catec· i \ J d ( \, \ (j il •' (_., - - • ......) vers s DESTIN i•J ( c u 8 ,-.1."' r· IT' ,, 'I -1 . \ q ', ... ., r•l Cl 'l t _ ,2"11 1l.._. .,__,: l \i , :·\_ ,:=_-. ·, 1 ·:r'-- '1] , , , • IF= . .:qJI il ;,,)1 . i'C uq !'I: M r· .P'.t"d' ]fJ \Vl a, Hlotra r Advocate rrR 1 "'ll! c· 11L_i'_'L c·-:·'\\1" 1 .L, 11'11. -· _, _ _l___c j SHREE RAJ TP./.'/ELS 6( TOU & ORS. . ., . oners l' 'l ,. C: ; jl t·""' C j" {\ d ' r --. (" ·=o 'j"' •::. t "') ,, : 1; Lt \_-:·: 1 • .J· i , 1...:.\ __ ;, l,; :.,_, ..__ . .:::;. .. c 'IV .l ,c. 1--, 1· ll ,- 7 d .. v e '' ·. ·:- ,--.; ::; ' 'i ,,--;::,", l. . , ·'_; (jj-l j ......... J ,, i! I' c # ... .ILl, V • ._,., ,f I'· , - •• , , -, li d .. -- .. 1'1:c;il a , t. a1nrndyd A n > f"l R I'-. I \ , r ·t p ,--· 1 1.1 iO :1 r I •_)Lc)J ·:r!. r - .· :·1; r·s ·.\ 2·. versus DEST!NA,THJN F THE \NORLD (SUBCONTINEI\lT) PRIVATE LTD. . .... Respondent Through: Advocate CHLM.C 1172/2011 SHREE i:ZAJ TRAVELS 6( TOU LTD. & ORS. Through: . .... Petitioners Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jl n Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav Aqarvvc;d and Mr.Tanrnaya - - .l\garvva I, i\clvocates versus DESTINIATION OF THE V\/ORLDr(SUBCONTii\H::INT) PRIVATE LTD. . .... Respondent rough: Mr-.Ar,indya Malhotra, /\d\,rocate - . CRLM.C 1173/2.011 SHREE RAJ TRA\/ELS & LTD. & ORS. . ,. .. Petitioners Througll: Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr . ._laljn Zaveri,, Mr.Gaurav Agarv\ial and Mr.Tannnaya Aga rwa :1, J\dvocates ver-sus DEST!N.A,TION OF THE \NORLD (SUBCONTiNEf\IT) PRiVATE LTD. . .... Respondent Thmugh: Mr.Anindya Advocate CHLM.C 117l:J[Z011 SHREE FZAJ TRJ\ ELS &. TOU LTD. f)< ORS. . .... PetiUoners Th(ough: Mr.Sunil Gupta, with Mr-.Jatin Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav f\,garwal and Mr.Tanmaya A9arwal, Aolvo_cates CrU\/I.CI\Io.1056/2CJH i?r connened 111<1tt2rs I ·-.! versus DESTiNf'\T! N F THE \f\IOR.LD (SUBCOI\JT!!\IEI'\·, PRIVATE L ..... Respondent Through: Mr.f\nindJya f\/ilaihotra_, Advocate CRLM.C. lLCSi/2011 SHREE RAJ TF,,u, ELS 6( TOU LTD. 8( ORS. ·rll ro u ';;! il: . . , .. Petitioners Mr.Suniil Gupta,. Sr.tJ,oJvocate with r.jabn Zaveri, Agar\1\/all and Mr.Tanmaya AgarvvaL Advocates versus DESTII\IATION C)F THE \NOP\LD L ..... Respondent ThroJgh: Mr .. Anindya Malhotra, CHLM.C. SHREE RAJ TR/\VcLS & TOU LTD. c'( ORS. ThmLigh: .. ... Petit!m1ers Mr.SL:n ',1 Gu,pta, Sr.Advocate w1th Mr.jatin Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav A.ganl\ial a Mr.Tanmaya Agarvvai, versus DESTII\ll\ Of\1 F THE \/\/OR PRIVATE ..... Respondent Tllrough: Mr.Anindya Malhotra, /\dvocate CRLM.C. lll8/201J1. S!_jREE IJ 1'\j & TOUF"" 1 Tr) _ v- .. , \/ t:. :J . 1 .. ) L L • & ORS. Pp:tr'-non ::::oi-c • ••• , _ · 11l11 i •> -' ;-ough. Mr.Sunil Gupta, Sr.Advocate vvith ,-_Jatin Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav J-\garvval and Mr.Tanmaya Cri.M.C.No.1056/2.0E 8( corr.:c·:::ted matters Pa2e 3 of 27 Aga nNa i, vers;u:::; DESTH\LL\T!ON OF THE \NO (SUBCONTINENT) PRIVATE ..... Respondent Mr.fllllllldya Malhotra, Advocate CRLM.C. 1179/2011 SHREE RAJ TP.J1.\/ELS &c TOU 1 R.S LTD. &c ORS. . .... Petitioners upta, Sr.f\dvocate with li\k,Jatin Zaveri, Mr.(]aurav A.gan.lval and Mr.Tanmaya Thmugll: Ag a ;J,,dvocates DESTil\lt\T!ON OF THE V\/OP( (SUBCONTilNENT) PRIVATE .,. .. Respondent Mr.AYtindya Malhotra, Advocate CRLM.C. LUHJ/.:011 SHREE RAJ & TOUFV3 LTD. & ORS. ,. ... Petitioners Through: Mr.Suni upta, with Mr.Jatin Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav Aga rvJc:d and M r.Ta nmaya Agarvval, /\dvocates versus DESTINATiON F THE WOR (SUBCONTlNE PRiVATE L ..... Respondent Through: Mr.1L\nincJya Maihotra, Advocate CRLM.C. 118:3/2011 SHHEE TPt-,\/ELS &c TOU L TO . E;c ORS. Through: .. ,..Petitioners Mr.Sunil Gupta, Sr.Advocate with l\li r·.jiatin Zaveri, M r.Ca u rav (l·l.fVJ.C.l\Jo.1056/2011 & C01Wected mattPI"S P2ge 4 of:r l\garvv;3JI and 1Mr.Tanma'/a Agarwal! verSUIS DESTiiNATiON F THE VVORJJD (SUBCONTH\!El\iT)PRIVATE LTD. .. ... Respondent Through: Mr.A.n:indya Malhotra, t1dvocate 11H60011 CHDEE: 0/j' TD(I'r/C.I C r- --nl' ._).' I \ _ I \i tJ ! \r-\ \· L L....J V j LTD. 6( ORS. .. ... Petitioners Tll1rough: r.!jt.Stmil Gupta, SrJ-\dvocate with rjatin Zaveri, Agarvval and Mr.Tanmaya Aga I versus DESTINATION OF THE \NOR (SUBCONTiNE PRIVATE L .: ... Respondent fhrO'};:Jh: Malhotra, Ad·vocate CRLM.C 1187/2011 SHREE RAJ ELS & TOU &( ORS. . .... Petitioners ''ill r 1·) c r n· h • :1 ! ! '. ! ) ' Mr.Sunill (;uptal Sr.t\dvocate \Ivith r.jlatin Zaveri/ Mr.Gaurav Agarvval and M r.Tanmaya J\garwai, t'\dvocates versus o:= THE \NOR (SUBCONT1NEf\l PRIVATE LTD. . .... Respondent Through: Mr.Ani!l1cl,ya Ma!llotra, Advocate r·'R" M ,., }I' QOj'71(["1] I IL •• ,· I.IL. .c. .JJ - SHREE :RJ!\i THJl.VU_:S /:;_,( T()tJ ·' & OF\S. ..... Petitioners '1"\-1 ,-n · ': n h I I ··- L, C) ', Gupta! Sr.i'\dvocate cr:.M.C.No.1056/2011 2r. Page 5 of '27 \ with Mlr.Jatin Zaveri, Mr,Gaurav Agarvva! and Mr.Tanrnaya 4,ga rvva I, ,L\oJvocates versus DESTir·JJ-\TION OF THE \IVOH (SUBC::Of\!TINEI\!T) PR!V/J1TE ... ,. Respondent Thmugh: Mall1otra, Advocate CORA/i'\11: HON'13lE MR. jUSTIICE

¶1V\/hether the Peporters of local papers iT1av be aUowEd to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred R.eporte1-or not?

¶3'Whether the judgment sllou!cl be reported in the Digesf:? PRADEEP ].

¶1Briefly stated the facts to filing of the above captioned p12titions a(e that :-espondent i.e. 'Destination of World (Subcontinen Pv1=. Ltd.' a cornpany registered under the Companies ,!.\ct filed 15 comp!la1ints under Section 138 of the N egotia bl e i ments Ac( 1881 (ilereinafter referred to as the 'Nl 3 cheques bei1·,g the subject m1atter of each complaint. Petitioner No.1 .. e. 'Shree Raj Tra\:els S< Tours l_td.' a cornpa:l;: r-egistered under the Companies Act was impleaded as accLJsed No.1 arH::l petiboners 2 to 7 vver·e impleaded as co-accus2cl on the aii{'?QJation that as they were inc:I-Jarge of the day to affairs of the company and hence were vicariously liable for the defaults of tile company. The cornp!ai;·;t was filed e Court of Additional Chief l\r1 etropolita n Cl'] (hereinafter referred to as the Cri.IVI.C.I\lo.J.056/2.011 ESr. connec;:ed matters Page Got Z1 r 'l\CM M ') N evv Delhi .. inter-alia. E:r/e ng t!llat tlile n::-spondent company ancl tile accused No.1 connpany had entered intc 2 agreements in te1Tns whereof e accused No.1 company had issued 45 crleques drawn on State Bank of Mumbai Branch, in favour of e respondent companv, . . which cheques wiler: prese 1r encashment by the respondent compoJ with its Banker iOO Bank l\llew Delhi. were dishonoured and upon the cheques returned tr.e respondent company iss.ued i'IOI:i·;:::es contemplat!2:d under proviso (b) to Section 138 Nl m Delhi to the accusE:d No.1 company when failed to rTtlake payment in respect of the sum for which tile cheques vvere dravvn within 15 days of the reo2ipt of e said n ces .. \1\iith respect to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi vvas pleaded that for the ,-eason the responclei-Jt hacl presented the chequEs in question for-collection with banker iOO Bank situated Delhi, the Court had the necessary jurisdiction,

¶2may be ;-Jcted at tile o et at after the complaints were filed, tile respondent comr::any filed a suit bearin9 No.SS0/2010 in whicil petitione:- was impieaded as th:: defendant befor-e e High Cou!-t of Bombay praying for 3 decree to be in the prinCti surn for vvhich the 4.5 cheques forming e subject--r-natter of the aforesai.J complaints were issued. tile plaint, jurisdiction of th1:: Courts at !Vlumbai was pleaded on the averment that th1.:' agreement pu.rsuant whereto tll.e cheques were issued vve:L; e><ecuted at l\/fu!Tibar as also that e cheques in question were drawn and issu,::od at MumbaL 8, cc:,rlectec: matters Page 7 of Z' -,!

¶3'Taking cognizance of e complaints, the learn::d t-\CG!lM suiTinloned e petitione:rs to face trial for an offen:e punishable under Section 138 of e 1\l.L Act.

¶4Upon service of the surri!Tlons, the pehtioners filed application(s) unde:- Section 177 c:1-.P.C. inter-a!ia stating that the courts at Delhi hoJ\/rE: no jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints:· and prayed that Ue complaints be returned to tile respondent to be filed In the court of competeTc jurlsdictic,n. Together vvith the sa!ci appiication(s), 2 to 7 filed appHcation(s) seeking exemption fo1-personal appearance before Court. Dismissing application(s) '::eeking exemption from persona I appear-a nee and ke,eping pending, fc r consideration, application(s) filed Ui"11der Section 177 Cr.P.C. vide orrder elated 25.05.2010 e earned i\CM issuec! bailable warrants 2 to 7.

¶5Aggrieved by the order dated 25.05 .. 2010, petitioner:; 2 to 7 filed petition(s) under SeCtion 482 Cr.P.c:. before th1.3 Court, which petitions were dismissed vide order dated

23.09.2010. thereto, pehtioners filed petition.; seeking Special Lea\;e to Appeal t) re the Supreme Court which were disposeci of vide ot-cle; dated 14.1.2011 with cl direction to the at applications filed unde-Section 177 Cr.P.C. vvould be disposed of within 2 weeks.

¶6Vide dated

14.02.2011 learned ACMM dismissed the applr:=ation(s) under· Section 177 Cr.P.C. filec by the petitioners on the ground at iin view of the dicturr of law laid doVI.'n the Suprer-r1e Court in e decisior Cri.M.C.No 1056/2011 & C>Jnn::cted matter: ·.-! reported as (200Li,) 7 SCC 338 /:ida/at Prasacl 1/ Roop Laj /lnda! once the .c:gistrate hr::s taken cognizance of a complaint he has i;lo povver IT! the same to th,::: complainant with a direction the same be filed in a court of competent jUI"isdiction.

¶7Aggrieved by e order dated 14.02.2011 passed b'/ the !earned ACMM, the petitioilers llave filed tile above-captioned petition(s under Sectior1 48:2 Cr.P,C requiring this Court to hold th courts at Delhi have no juriscliction to take cognizance of the COITlpiail·rts in question and seek dil-ections to the leai-ned to the same for before the Court of ::::ompetentjurisdiction.

¶8It is the -case of the petitioners that the cheques 1r1 question were draw:-: at Murnbai. e drawee bank is a·- Mumbai, notice issu·ed by the 1-espor1olent to tile petit:ione;- company was received at Mumbai ar1ol thus merely the respondent post,ed the notice fro!Tt and depositecl cheque with i bank a Delh·i would not confer" jurisdiction on Cou(cs in DeihL

¶9Tile issue ilas trJ be debateol Nitll to Section 138 of the J\Ct and tl1e applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedui''2 i.e. Secbons 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶10dec1sicm 1-eported as 1999

(7) SCC SIC I(Bl7askaran \Is. Slr;:;inl-;arq7_ 1/.3_/QZivan Balan S Sup:-eme Court has opined, afte·'" considering Sections 1 7'2 to Section 179 of f::: Code of Procedure, that ar, Crl.M.C.I\Io.l056/2011 g, r:orli'JPli·:>d malters Page 9 of 2! offence may be corTp!eted in :::liffef-ent 1locaiities and thus can be trieci in 2'lY Court he. ng jurisdiction over localities. To p it pithily, rrn re!abon to territorial jurisdiction, qua c=w offence., law ;-ecognizes more than 1 court havlngr jur-isdiction and the issue of territoha: jurisdiction ·would nave to be decided Vl!ith reference tc vvhether a part of offence 1Nas vvithin thE territorial jurisdictiDrl of a court. e issue is no longP.r res integr-a and [ just net:'CJ to note e decision of the Supreme Court in. KB/;askaran's case (supra) and highlight that the; aforesaid is to ,'Je C'v:iied out fron1 ras 11 and 1:2 of the said decision.

¶11The next logical questkm \MOU 1ld be, what are the contour-s of Section 138 of the 1\il /\c:t pertaining to acts to be performed in r-elation to an offence contemplated by the said Section? it ha !y be l-e-e1Tiphasized at it are acts of. cornmission or O!Tdssion vvhrch c:c1 sbtute offences, with or v\dtho ut the requisite rnens n2a; depending upon \Nilether, the offence i5 an absolute offence or not.

¶12Let me thus note Section 13El, ,NI Jl,ct which reads as under:-'INhere any cheque drawn a person on an accou:lt maintained by vvith a banker for payment of· any amount r'noney to another person from out of that account for discharqe, in whole or in of any debt or other liabiiity, is r-eturned 1oy the bank either because the arnou of rnoney standing . to the credit of that account: Is insufficient to honour· the cheque .<Jr that It i:'.::>(ceeols the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an , Cri.IVI.C.No.1056/2Dll 8t me1tters agreement made with that bank,, such person shall be deelll2d to have CDITnnitted an offence and shall out prejudl<:e to any other provisions m" this Act, be punished wiith imprisonment for a term may extend to two year, or wi fine which may extend to tvvice the amount of e cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing conta i r-J in this section shall appiy unless-

(a) The cheque has been prresented to the bank within a per-iod of six months nn the date on which it is dr:.:nrvn or wiU11in e period of its v·a!idity, whichever-is earliel-.

(b) The payee 01-tile holde1-induce course cheque, as the case may loe., makes a denland for the payment of the said amount of money by giving cl1 notice, in writing, the drawer, of the cheque, within thirty days of the· receipt of information by him from the lba.nk return of the cheques as un id, and

(c) Tile drawer-of such cheque ils to make the payment of the said amount: of money to the payee or, as tile case may be, to the holder in due course of e cheque, 'IN in fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. · Explanation: For-the purpose Clf this "debt or o e1-iiabinty" nneans a enforceable de or other lialoH section, le!Qaliy _ (b

¶13In Bhaskaran's case (supra) Supreme Court had an occasion to cleal wit!: tile issue jurisdlct\on in rei ation to Section 1.33 of the 1\ll and of necessity .. the discussion requin::d tile Supreme Court to ijden_Ufy the . various acts of commission and G!T,ission which ::::onstituted the offence ur1der Se on 138 6f the Nl J\ct and suffice -would it be llighligllt that in para 14 of the Cri.IVI C.No.1056/2011 g, malte:-s Page 11 of21 [ decision, the SuprerT1e Court lliQJ1--diQJhtecl that there are 5 acts which are the component<: e offence punishable under Section 138 the i\ii Act and re-produce the samE. from para 1·4 oF the decision of e ')upreme Court. The] read as under:- ( .) I; drawinq of the cheque,

(ii) of rile cheque to tile bank, ( ... ) ill; returning the cht:'que unpaici by e drawee bank, ( iv) giving notice vvriting to e dravver of the cheque· demanding of the cheque iimount,

(v) failure of the dr-c'.vver to rnake payment within 15 days of the receipt of the

¶14After holding at a wouiol constitute components of S31l offt::;nce under Se on 138 of the Nl .L\ct, in par-as 15 and 16 ctle Supreme Court observed as Lmder: " 15 . it is not il e cess a ry t h a H e above five acts should ha\'e been pe([Detrated at the same locality. It is that eaclll' of ose five acts could be dor1e c:t five diffe:-e localities. But a concatenation of all the above e is a sine qua non for the compietlon of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Se·=tion 178( d) e Coole is useful. It is extr·a cted bel ow:

¶16Thus it is c! ea ;-, if the five d iffel-ent acts were done in five different localitirc::-; alfly one of the courts exercisin9 jurisdiction ill one of the five iocal areas can IJecome the !Jilace of trial for the offence Section 138 of e .A.ct. in other 'i1.'101dC ·ti1D :Y'!-:-: l=:,·;I"-Jaq.LL a!l\/ Olnc. 'Jf \J ,t,_._, : ,'\,._, ·-.-L.• •. •- ._ • .,.-.r: ··-'' r ..)' "-.1 Cri.M C.No.1056/201:1 & iT!ntter.o Page 1?. Df n l those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within territorial limits of vvhich any one of those acts was done. As am pi itude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle to raise jurisdictional question rega1 ding offence under Section of e Act." (En7phasis Supplied)

¶15On the issue of service of notice required to be given by the complainant to the acc:u:sed, e Supre1Tr1e Court observed as under:- /!17. The mol-e irnportant poi be dedded in this case is vvhether-the cause of action bas arisen at a!! as n ce sent by e complaina e accu \Nas returned as "unclaimed/l. T:ie conditions pertaining to e notice to be given to the cJravver, have been for-mulated and incorporated in clauses (b) to {c) of tile proviso to Section 138 of e The said cia uses are extl-acted belovv:

¶18On the pa of the payee he has to make a demand by a notice in writing. that was only ,-equirernent complete offence on tile Failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amou11t within 15 days from the date of such "19 ivi ng ", the trava i Is the prosecution would have bee:l very mr.Jch lessened. B legislatut-e says that on the part of the drawer to pay t!le amount should be within 15 days "of the of tile said notice. is, therefore, clear that "giving notice" in context is not ·the same as receipt of nobc:e. Giving is a process of vvhicl1 receipt is the accompiishmer1t 1t is for e p.ayee to perform the former tJrocess bv the nobce to e l ..) ._., draV\rel-r=Jt ·t1-IP ao1d"'"ioc;s . ) ' -- ·, .. l '-- ..._ ' \.__. Ci-U'·1.CI\io.1056/2011 6c ccH:rc;_tecJ matters Page :n of 2.7

¶20If a strict interpl-etation is given that the drawer should have actually received the nobce for the perioc! of 15 days to running no matter that e payee se the notice on the correct address .. a trickster cfneque drawer wou1d get the prenlliurn to avoid rece ring the nobce by different and he could escape from the leg a I con seq of Section 138 of the ,Act. must be borne :n mind e court not adopt an inte :-etation which h,elps a dishonest evader and clips an honest payee as that would defeat the very legislative 21 ..... The context envisaged in Section 138 of the Act invites a Iibera! inte retation for the person who has the oblig1ation to give notice bee a use ile is presumed be the loser in the transactio:1 and it is for his the very provision is made by the re. The words in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 13B of the 1J..ct sllO\N that the payee has the statutory obligation to "rnake a demand" IJy '9Jiving notice. The thrust In the clause is on the need to "make a demand". it is only the nnode for making such demand which the legislature has prescribed. ,.4 payee can sencJ the notice for doing hls part for giving tile notice. Once it is despatched his part is over and e deoends on vvhat the sendee I . does. ·

¶22It is weil settled that a notice refused to be accepted by the addressee can be presumed to have been served on him (vide 1-larcharan Singh v. Shivrani2 and jagdish Singh v. l\fatthu Singh3). HE·r-e e is rneol as und.aimed a ,-.,rl !lOit- ;:;c: rPfiJcpr-1 \1'\t'l"li t[lt='lr,:::, all\( c:;i'Qrl·l··fnra",'li-J \_.):] lc_ l_.,, .._} < ._. j ,_.) '-- • .;

1... ) li ..._. \., difference so far as presumption or service is co11Cerned? this Cr!.iV!.C.I\Io.1056/2011 8t matters Page l4 of n connection a refer-ence to S(:.2c:tion 27 of the General Clauses i\ct will b:e usefuL The section reads t11us:

¶24No doubt Section 138 e Act does not requi1-e that tile notice should be given only by "post". Nonetheless the in Section 27 (quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case where sender has despatched the notice by iC::!OSt vvith the correct address writte1-; on it. Then lit can be deemed to have been served on e sendee · unless he proves that it vvas not really served and that he was not r·espc::lsible for such non-service. A.ny other inter-pretation can leacl to a very tenuous position as the drawer of tile cheque vvho is liable to pay tt:e amount wou:ld resort to the strategy of subter-fuge by successfully avoiding the notice.

¶25Thus, wl1en a notice returned by the sendee as c.mclaimed such elate would be the d:ate in reckoning the period of 15 days contemplated in claus2 (c) to the proviso of Section1 138 of e Act. Of course such reckoning would be withmJt prejudice to e right of the drawer of the cheque to show at he had no knowledge that tfle notice vvas brought to address. In the :Jresent cas·e the accused did not even attempt to discharge the burden to rebut p:-esumption." (En7phasis Supplied)

¶16The expr·essiol-:s: 'presenta the cheque to the Bank' and 'If the :/e different acts were done in five different C!f!Y one if:e courts e)(ercising jurisdiction in one c7c t/7e five /oc,a/ areas can becorne the olace of trial (ol-the c/Yence under Section 138 ol tl7e /:jet' to . . r e f:J I In C''l .,l.-1 'J...., c l ':1 'l [ 1 1 c r·· c= r-·t'I'V(::::. .!1\ 7 ""l p 17 -, -.-, ,--:lr-7' r- ,.,) I '-- \.... l c . Cl.l __.) .L 0, J - . \_) ·:-:.: ......... ::-...1 c ·-· ' J' . .. :::. case (supra) ha,;e b,2,-:n understoodl loy n:any to mean that Crl M.C.f\Jo.1056/2011 co :·r:,der! o;:,ge 15 of 27 the Court within Joc.2! limits of vvlli ll epayee Bank i.e. Bank \/Vhen:: tile cieposited cheque i::; situated has the j J -isdiction the complaint under Section 138 of the 1\ii Act, and th;e unclerstanding1 appears to be fortified by tile observations of the Supreme Court in paras 15 and 16 that if the 5 acts as the ingt-edient of an offence under Sectiion 138 of the [\H ,IJ..c: were done in 5 di __ rc:nt loca! es,. any one of the cou(: exercising jurisdictioi: In an}' one e 5 are,as vvoulc have jurisdiction. But, it is app2:i-2'";t that the IC)bser'Jations in para 15 and 16 are an obiter as it is not :;, 'Cllac:es vvhere e 5 acts . I constituting an offence under Section 138 of the !\U can possibly be perfon11ed The act:; can be perfoi-mc.d, as would be explained h,=:reinafter, on:ly art 4 and it Nould immediately state act No.2 and act 1\lo 3 t,J one place i.e. the piace vvhere tli1e bank is

¶18The second anci the third a the 5 listed by the Supr-eme Court, as CCillStituting r:-_; offence under Section 138 of the f\11 A.ct

(a) presen tion of the cheque to the bank; and (b) retwT:i:-IQ the tH"1paid by e drawee bank.

¶19The thiml act is e reh1n1 cheque unpaid by the drawee bank anoi thus tl1e1 .. e Is no scope fot-any 3Jrgun:ent as to which bank is contemplated reference to the said act. The second o.ct pertains to the act of presentation of to the banlc i ilighl!g!Tt tna tw:n WOI"ds used are I the bank. Cri.M.C.No.1056/2011/S, mc;tters r !.' I ; i'i p

¶20lin the decision as 2001 (3) SCC 609 Shri lshar A/lov Steels Ltd Vs. la_vaswals Neco Ltd, a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Cou r·- 2 Jing as a member of the Bench the author the judgJme in Bhaskaran's case (supra), dealt with and decided as '/\rhat wouicl be rneant by ··the bank' as me oned in ,Jn 138 of e N! Act. VI/as it the drawee bank or e ;Jayee bank? The Supreme Court ansvve e questio1-1 !:,1 the followin9 words:- ':! ( \f\f'1::o-t :c b\· '·' e 'oaili</J ;::)C: , I CJ '._1 _. Cl I - __ I l VJ .._, mentioned in c!au:se (a) of the pmviso to Section 138 of theN ououie !Instruments Act, 1881?

(IJ) Does such bank mean the bank of the drawer of tl1e cheque or e payee of the c eque?

(c) To which barlG. the cheque is to be presented for oiF attractiilCi tile penal rprovisions of Section 138 of the .A.ct?, are the questions be deteiTilined by this Court in is appeaL · has r::( :y::: noticec 1 at to make an offence .under-Sr2ction 138 of the l\ct, it is mandatory at 2 cheque is presented to "the bank" within a riod of six months from the date on wl1icr11 it is drawn or vvithin tile period of its validity, whicli"!e·Jer is earlier. \s the cheque which f1as to be prese to "the bank" w in the peri specified therein. When a post-dated cheque is vv·l·itten dravvn, it is only a bill of exchangJe. e oost-dated clleque become a cheque unde!r c: J\ct on t:le elate which is written on the saicl cheque ancl the six months! 8r n1atters Page 17 of ;n period has to be reckoned, for the purposes of Section 138 of the Act, frorn the said date.

¶8Section 138 provides at vvhere any cheque drawn by a person on-an account maintained bv him with a llthJnker'' for payment of any amount of money to another person frorn out of that account for the discharge, in \llfliloie or in part, of any debt or other liability, .is returned by "the bank" unpaid, either becau::;e of the amount of money standing to the cred at account is insufficient to llonour e cheque or that It exceeds tile Y'1lount arTang to be paid from that account by an agreeme made with that bank, such pel-son shall be deemed to have commiitted an offence punishable vvith imprisornllent 3S prescribed therein subject to the conditions mentioned i:n clauses (a), (b) and

(c) of the proviso. Section 3 of the 1-\ct defines the "banker': to include any person acting as a banker-and any post office savinQs bank. :Section 72 of the provides at a cheque must, in ol-der to charge the drawer, be presented at the bank upon vvhich it is drawn before tile relations between tile cli-awer and his has been altered to the pr-ejudice of the drawer.

¶9The use of e \Nords "a and "the bank" in the section is an indica I' of the intention of the leQis!atun:::. Tile former is an indirect (sic indefinite) artic!e and tile latter is prefixed by a direct (sic definite) artide. intended to ila\;e the same meanings for "a bank" and "tile bank", then:· vvas no cause or occasion for iTlentioning! it distinctly and differently by using two d re articles. It is worth noticing tilat the word "banker" in Section 3 of the Act is prefixed by tile indefinite article "a" and tile word "bank" wher-e tr1e clleque is intended to be presented under Section 138 is prefixe11J by thr2 definite a de ''the". The sarne section permits a person to is::.ue. a cheque on an account ITlaiiltained by hiiTJ vv "a bank" and Cri.M.CNo.1056/2011 1St matters Page 18 of 21. makes hin'1 liable for crinr:dn1d1 iDrosecution if it is ' returned by "the bank" unpaid. The payment of cheque is contemplated by "the bank" m1eaning el-eby where e person issuingJ the cheque has an account. "The" is the word used before nouns, with a spec ng or partkularising effect as ooposed to indefinite or generaiising force of "a" (),- "'an". determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. ''The" is always mentioned to denote a particular thing 01-a person. ''The'' vvouid, refer i mplicitiy to a specified ba nil< and not any bank. "The bank" ·referred to in clause

(a) to the proviso to Section 138 of e Act wouid mean the drawee bank en which the cheque Is drawn and not all banks the d1eque is presented for collection including tile bank of the payee, in whose favour e cheque is

¶10it however, does not mean that the cheque is always to be presented to U1e drawer's bank on whiich the ::::heque is issued The payee of cheque has tile option to pn:se11t e cheque in any bc:mk including the collecting: bank where he has his account but to c:1ttract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to _JQI-esent the che1gue in, the drawee or pavee bz:u1k on which cheque is drawn within the_period of six months from the date on whicl1 it i.::; sllovvn to have been ...... The ilOn-prese tion of the cheque to tile drawee b::1 k within the period specified In the section \Nou!d absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liabHit)t under Section 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a ciVil action initiated under lavv. .A combined readin<Lof Sections 72 and 138 of the would leave no. doubt in CU( mind that tr11e la\0.c mandates the clle_lliJe _ _to .. irt bank on it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminaliL. liable. Such is Ci"I.M.C.f\lo.l056/2011 8t COilllPCted iY,CJtters Page 1S: of ZJ iv tJ be made vviH1 in six months at the • bank on whi,ch the cheque drawn whether presented pei-sonally or throuqil another-namelv, the _collecting of the (Ernpl7asis Supplied)

¶21ti·Je c1E"cision in A.\1/o)/s case (supra) has been rendered in e context lirnitation for presentaticn of a cheque, the said decision out in no uncerta;n terms that Sectior--:, 138 of the Ni contemplates that a cheque is requirec co be prese for encasl·1rT1ent to dr::Jwee Bank anc:l tile payeE: Bank, merely ac:ts as an agent of the ['l;:j'y/Peicnmp!a I rv· '-" _ ·- j <._. C I 'J •• )J for pu oses of presenting the Cil.C>.:: ue in on r encashment to th 2' d 1-a wee B a n k. }") LL. ·'-lle jlld :j:-t ·J-o wr··t'Cil CC! unl"i''i- :--,_:J-;:prrl-er-l .:J , L ,t_ _.1 L l , \'-' ·--- .._., J '\.... !u ........, L i l-1 I • _ _..l ro .... r=l' ,:- p r::; '":h' ir·ir; ... 1---,."' ._ [L __ ... c._,_ .AJ u. '-- L .. _ ,_ ... Vc ·-· 1 . .ol-. ___ , 1 .. •-- offence unde!- Section of e N! was th:: ,,£ - I OL I 1,, I P -"'eql'P J·'r·o dr-J\f\ree h-,li- -n·.- ·- Lil _;,_ .I-- ·- '''- L 'c . - [viOl! :.\. dl t;J needless to statr;:: e Td act vvr1i1Ch CO'lsbtutes :an Ingredient of the offence is ti_:\C:: retum of the cheque by th: dravvee bank and t::us it beco1Tv2s crystal c!ear that e Z'j and 3rd act constit _ :lg the offence relate to on!y one olace i.e. the p!ace ,,here the drawee bank is located. I '

¶23These are rr.y humble re;asons to hold that the observations in paras 15 and 16 have to be read as ao orbiter and tl1us the 5 acts conten .. r:c)lated as constituting the offence are :Jf being pe rm not in 5 but only in 4 places and siilce -:jeposit of (: eque with the payee bank Is not an a . cunternplated as: an i:•:gredient o·f the +r· • : . h · ' · 'I • l o1rence, cne t1 epa e bani< IS \N.OUJd Crl.i\f!.C!\Io.1056/2011 (,_ Page of 27 '2 irrelevant for pc: usc"::; of dete::rnir;1ing jurisdiction of the criminal court.

¶24It is settled !c:rN that a decision is 31l auth1ority for the point it decides and not what can be logically deduced and the i-.:rtio of a decision has to be gathered with to th,2 facts of a case and highlight onlr one decision oF 2 Supren1e Court reported as f}hodh.Q_'_(-Iouse il 5:!( 9 sec 41.

¶25The jL:risoliction can also be dec:ded with reference to Sec::tion 6, :3e on 7, Sectlion 64 and Section 72 of the /\ct.

¶26Tile rE::. '1' e\1 -, ,.-,'[-· "rrt'l 0 - . C: l l L

1.--1 I...) h 1 of. 6, Section 7 and r .L' I 64 ,,;:: ·- .. , ('r:::r"'-·,,-. .. f (> t ,, .. ""'d''c , .. .:::.ecuoll Cl .\l!. n: i<,__; .::J .• i J L 'Je i! I fJJC: II ea _., a.:J ·under:-· Section 6. Clleoue: - A "cheque" is a biH of exchange d!-a\Nil on a spec ed banker· and not expressed to be otherwise than on demand and it !:-·:ciudes the image of a truncated cheque and a ch i.Je in the electronic form. )( )( )( Section 7. The nlaker of at bill of exchange or Cheque is ca i I ed "c1 rawer"; per-son !- 0 1 p·:::1·;· ,·c t-!·1e "n!-a\f\.le·e" L \...... 5 ..._ .Y u ' 1_. \._.. ·- ,_ - \......; • l._.i, ) ._; '--·' .._. UJ I_ t... ' " )( )( )( Section

¶64i0 resentrrle payment.

(l)]Prorr1isso ncte::., bilils exclnange and cheques must be pr·e:sen for payment to the maker, accepto·- or dr0vvee thereof respectively; by or on of the holder as hereinafter - id I-, ()r .,,,! ... ...,r-rco '--·r -·t t·'-jn p!OV, E .. v. 1!' \..:>:::.idJ L .r SlLill p.i'c._),,_nulle[!t. J:c Cr!.i\il.C.i\:o 1056/2011 ;;;, co,-"v'·cteci rnzlite•·s ::>age: .2'1 of n. other ther-eto are n Uable thereon to such holder ...... . X X X Section 7.2. Subject .e provisions of section B4 a rnust ir:: order to charge the drawer, be presented at u·:e bank upon which it is drawn befo,-e the relation lbetvlfeen the drawer and his bankel' l1as been a to the prejudice of the drawer . .27. t\ co-joint reacii::g of Sections 6, 7, 64 anol 72 as of Section 138 of the f\1 ;.::\ct out that in order-to attract penal provisions of Section 13B Act a cheque is required to [t)e prese1-1ted for encaslrlme to the Bank and that the payee Bank acts mel-ely as an agent of for the purposes of presenting the cheque in question to the dravvee Bank. The necessary cor-ollary thereof is no pa cause of action for the offence punishable Sectioi'l 133 of the l\ct arises the Court within the ocal l!mlts which the conectiing of the i.e. payee Bank is situated .and thus saiC' Court has no jurisdiction to try a con1plaint under Sectior 138 of the Nl filed by the COtTiiplainant.

¶28This takes me to the consideration of second question involved in the pr-e::;ent case i.e. whether the court within local liimits of which pl.c;:ce from where complainant had sent a notice contemplated under proviso

(b) appended to Secti·on 138 of e Nl l\ct is situated has the jurisdiction to try a ccnnp!aint filed under Section 138 ofthe NlAct o-1.1Vl.C.I\Io.1056/20U 0. ?age 2.2 of 27· - 2 9. I have a !ready noted the observations made by the Supreme Court in Bhaskaran's ca::;e (supra) in the foregoing paras and would llighlight that in paras 17 to 23 the Supreme Court has reflected upon the limitation within which the notice !1as to be g n to the accused. Th1;= Supreme Court was tile expression 'giving () notice' in proviso to Section 138 of the N! t\ct, with reference to the 15 clays' time contemplated then by vvhich the requisite notice had to be se:-vr2d, which time is now 3( days.

¶30Another decision of the Supr,eme Court, reported as

(2009) 1 SC:C 720 l-!arman Electronics Private Lilnfted v National Panasonic /nola Private Lilnited is worth noting on the subject.

¶31In Hannan's case (supra) tile question which had arisen before t!1e Su;Jreme Court IlVas precisely the sarne. ,question whic!1 arises for consicller-atlon in the present petition i.e. whether e court witilint e local limits of whicll the place fronn wile:-e the had sent a notice contemplated! under

(b) Section 138 of the Act is situated has tile jur-isdiction to a complaint filed under Section 138 of tile Ni: ;:J,ct. the aforesaid question ln the negative, the Supreme Cou observed as under:- 1112 ...... Oilly question, therefore, vvhich arises for consicieration is at as to w11ether sending of notice from Delt-li H=selrf would give rise to a cause of action for takin121 cognizance under the Negcrtiab e nstruments Ci"l.fVI.C.No.1056/20E ,'5i_ :::onnr:::te:d matters /'

¶13It is one thing to s at sending of a notice is one of the ing1 ients for maintaining but it is a11other thing to say that dishonour · a cheque by its.elf constitutes an offence. For e pu(pose piTNing its case that the accuseci had comrnitted an offence under Section 138 :Jf the Negotiable Act, ingredie:lts the!-eof are required to be proved. \/\!hat would con:.:;btute an offence is stated i 11 . e main The proviso appended ereto, .. imposes certain further cond ons which are required tc· be fulfilled befcYe cognizanoc:: of e offence can be taken. If the :ngred!ents for constitution of the offence laid clown in prc)visos

(a), (b) and (c) appended to Section 13E: of the Neg1otiab!e Instruments a!-e intend to be applied in favour of the c.:ccused, there: cannot be any doubt that receiot of a notic.e vvould u mateiy -give rise to the cause action for n ing a complaint. ;0.,s it is only on of the notin:' that the accused at his own p21-il may refuse to pay the arnount. Clauses (b) an,j (c) of the rprovJso to Section 138 therefore mu.st be read tCIQJether. of notice would not by itself gjive rise to a cause of action but CO!Iimunication of the notice would . . '" .... For constitution of an offence under Section 138 of the , the rn,ust be recehreol by the accused, It may be deemed to have been in certain si ons. vvord "comrnunicate' inter ala means "to make known, lnfotTn, convey, etc".

¶20.. ... ccurt derives a juri ict:i.on only wlhen the cause ()f arose within its jurisdiction. The same cc,r-not be co rred by any act of. omission Dr-commission on the part of the accused. A distinction n1u also be borne in mind IC>c:tJVeel"r e an offence and o:' a oar-t e offence. V\fhlle issuance of a by tlv2 holder of a negot1a_Q_!e Cri.M.CI\Io.1056/2011 & cc•,wcc:cted matters J(J instrun'lent is tilereof is _.9l_::o imperative. nly on a service of stJcll notice and failure Oil 1:.1-e part of e Dccused to pay th•2 demanded a!T:ount within a oeriool of 15 da\1s ,, y thereafter! .. e cornrnission of an offence completes. 0_bdnq of notice therefore, cannot pi-ece(:ief]t over is only from that view of the rmatter that in Daln7ia Ce;nent (Bharat) Ltd v. Galaxv Tr:::rders & Agencies .L emphasis 1-1as been laid on service of notice .. " (Etnphasis -:; ·-; 1'. ::). ·f''. rr\ .-: -, ':.-C --, .... {. l_, -., n-F' t I 'I n r' -.. r ·F ·tf c ,; r- :l ....... 0 ..JL. ;--,t. u LJL!u;U.:>;,, _:oUI>i\:!J '.J! _,l<E Q, .lE. . . --... -t ·. f7f.. -, .f .. ., d ·•_J r---, --,..,;. -· , .. , ., ... ,\ \...:.u U i I il n t,a,; Ji<!...!. S Cc;SeS (5u )-!I o; !· t IT! a/ strike to the reader· that there s a confnct between t!1e hvo decisions ,inas:TiUCh 2·5 rn Bhas/-:araris case (supra) it was held that the 'giving of notice' occurTing m proviso (b) to :)ecxion 1.38 of e Nil Act means ·sending ol notice/ whereas in Hanna17's ca::;e (supra) it vvas !1eld that tile said expressic;' means 'reu::f:c}lt of notice' . .33. A can::fu! i-ead, lQ of tile tv11o decisions shovvs at no conflict tJ een the saio, ck:ci ons inasmuch as tile:/ 1 ave !Jeen rer:cierecJ in different contexts. Thf::: decision m Bhaska_ran's case (supra) was rendered in the context Jf stal"'cing point of :! Titation pel-\ocl of 15 days preschbed in proviso (b) to

13.8 of r:: and It was in tll.jt context i.e. the cc:Y·=ext of lim on tf1at it was held by the Cou exnn::ssrron giving of notice' occurnng in proviso (b) to 138 of the i[\U Act means 'sending· or notice' The in 1-lannan's case {s:uprd) was rendered ir: context of cause of action for filing a cornplaint under Cc.' __ i \,.__ c_ "' "' rt I. C l! J-r r· 0 -- , ...... : [JCl d -· l ,_ :::lil(· cr1 138 w jurisdiction of a that it vvas 'r' \,.\ / t• h r-l e L 1 }· • : , e Cr!.!Vi C.No.1056/21l11 il.t COIVie.Ued m=:ttcrs ?age l.5 of \ c; up D _, J - l .! '·=- '··-' u 1v; rit. '["lP r: 1•/''79' 0/'. 1"'0[' fca' c .. 1 .. ...:/1, y,' /., .: C occurring in prJ\/iSC (b) to Se _ on 138 of the Nl ,L\ct means J receipt olnot/ce '.

¶34Now, same expression can i1ave differe m1ean!ngs in diffel-ent context as held by e Supreme Court in J·he decision r-epartee: as ll!falik l11ajwndar v __ Gourar:qC!_ C7andra

(2004) 12 SCC 8 wherein it was observed that a word occ> .. :rTi:-:g in a prov,ision can have different mean i ilQS in d1ffere co11text within statute.

¶35Thus, the iil,:?:vitable conclu:sion would be that the "1th act contemplateo: as an ingredient of the offence as llighlightecl in 8l7aska_ran's case i1.e. 'g/1/ing notice in vvrit!og to tl7e dra we;· of c/;eque / clen7al7oil7g pay;nent of the cheque an7ow7t, for purposes of limitation vvou!d have a meaning explained m Bl7askaran's and for purposes of jurisdiction would have a rneanrng1 as explained in !sliar AliQJ!s case (supra).

¶36Befor-e I vvould De failing not to lodge· a caveat. \1\fitll bankirr:(;J and facility pa.yabie at par of clearance or-ovided u - by bankers and especially n metro pol item cities \/lfh ere cheques are clea reel by not beir.g presented to the dravvee bank !Dut at nodal !Jranches of the concerned banks, e subject matter of juhsdiction .mc;.y have to be decidec keepinq vi:evv that the dr:avvee bank has created an when:: e cheque in question is 'r'·r·,•.- :::l'ld F• r. c-; 1"( 111·;::.1 1-;:::' _ 1 1 _ • L L , ...... 1 _ ....... , .. ); • .:..A , _ .J ._ 1r 1: ........ . ._. ... _. 1 ._. ct 1 c.: takes place wou!ci en become the place where (!·[ M.C.No.105E;/2J11 1St :-rlalters *'' !i ful; ! [;, ), ,.1' J I lit, !\;1 '-\l: "·:1 'f".l . f: 1:)1 : II· ', 'I' I( ' l' 1!, :., · "'I . . 1,1 ,:1 f.i: l:ci :ij : .. , ... '.1 ' 'i.l I ·: .• 1 : I '•j !i l>1 e cheque woulcl be required to be treated as presented to 'the bank' i.e. e bank. B in such circumstances, propedy constituted pleadings llave to be found in a COIT1plaint and lodging the caveat, i leave it at that for the debate to be prcperly argued in an appropriate case with the necessary pleadings.

¶37i hold at ·Jn tr11e pieaolings in the complalnt(s), no pa of cause 2:::::tiori can be said to have accrued to the com pia ina at CJ.c::ihi: that tile notice de rna nding paym2nt

1.rvas posted rn Deihl and tl-ic:.rt e cheque vvas deposir=ed vvit1n the payee bc:nil< at Delhi vvould not constitute the acts contemplateol as ingredients of an offence punishable unjer Section and thus I dispose of the petitions quasl1ing theirnp:Jgned order(s) elated 14.2.2011 and direct learned to return tile complaint(s) to respondents for filing in a Court having territo'-ial juhsdiction.

¶38No costs. SEPTEMBER 21, 2.011 mnn Cri.M.C.No.1056/20118t connected matte1·s ,.--:,"___:· -. (PHADEEP jUDGE Page 2.7 c.f 27

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: Jf7h September, 2011 Judgment pronounced on: 21st September, 2011 + CRLM.C. 1178J2011 SHREE RAJ TRAVELS & TOURS LTD. & ORS. .. ... Petitioners Through: Mr.Sunil Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.jatin Zaveri, Mr.Gaurav Agarwal and Mr.Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocates versus DESTINATION OF THE WORLD (SUBCONTINENT) PRIVATE LTD. .. ... Respondent Through: Mr.Anindya Malhotra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 13. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 14. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?