LexDASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 921
DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009 Etc.)
AUGUST 01, 2014
[T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Jurisdiction: •
.. ---
Territorial jurisdiction - Of criminal complaint filed under
Chapter XVII of Negotiable Instruments Act - Held: General
rule stipulated u/s. 177 Cr.P.C. applies to case uls. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act - Thus, the place or situs where
A
B
c
the complaint uls. 138 is to be filed, cannot be of the choice 0
of the complainant - The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to
the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was
committed i.e. where the cheque is dishonored by the Bank
on which it is drawn- The place of issuance or delivery of the
statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present E
the cheque for encashment are not relevant for the purpose
of territorial jurisdiction - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Chapter XVII, s. 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- s. 177.
Territorial Jurisdiction - Determination of - In Civil and F
Criminal cases - Criteria for - Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Heading, Captions or opening words of a piece of·
legislation - Interpretative value of - Held: Per Vikramajlt G
Sen, J. - They are normally not determinative of the sweep
of the actual p_rovision, but they do presage its intendment.
Interpretation of penal statutes - Held:_Per T.S. Thakur,
921
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 11 S.C.R.
A
J.~- While interpreting a penal statute, courts should hesitate
to ascribe a meaning broader than what the phrase would
ordinarily bear.
Words and Phrases:
B
'Prosecution' - Meaning of.
I
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Vikramajit Sen, J.;
C
1.1. Section 178 Cr. P.C. admits of no debate that in
criminal prosecution, the concept of "cause of action",
being the bundle of facts required to be proved in a suit
and accordingly also being relevant for the place of suing,
is not pertinent or germane for determining territorial
D jurisdiction of criminal trials.1 Section 178 CrPC explicitly
states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. Section 179 is of similar tenor. No provision
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) indicates or
E enumerates the extraordinary circumstances which
would justify a departure from the stipulation that the
place where the offence is committed is where the
prosecution has to be conducted. The employment of the
phrase "cause of action" in Section 142 of the NI Act is
F
apposite for taking cognizance, but inappropriate and
irrelevant for determining commission of the subject
offence. [Para 14] [946-E-H; 947-A]
1.2. The place of the issuance or delivery of the
statutory notice or where the Complainant chooses to
G present the cheque for encashment by his Bank are not
relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the
Complaints even though non-compliance thereof will
inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. The
Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section
H
'
I
•
• DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD v. STATE OF
923
MAHARASHTRA
177 etc. of the CrPC and therefore the place or situs where A
Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his
choosing. The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the
Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was
committed, which in the present context is where the
cheque is dishonoured by the Bank on which it is drawn. B
[Para 19] [950-H; 951-A-C]
1.3. An interpretation should not be imparted to
Section 138 which will render it as a device of
harassment i.e. by sending notices from a place which
has no casual connection with the transaction itself, and/ C
or by presenting the cheque{s) at any of the banks where
the payee may have an account. Courts are enjoined to
interpret the law so as to eradicate ambiguity or
nebulousness, and tp ensure that legal proceedings are
not used as a device for harassment, even of an apparent D
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 E
concerned. [Paras 11 and 17] [949-E, F; 940-E-F]
1.4. Regardless of whetheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.