K. BHASKARAN versus SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 29-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. BHASKARAN 
A 
v. 
SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 
(K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
B 
Negotiable Instmments Act, 1881 
S.138-Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds-Cognizance of 
offence-Territorial jurisdiction of Court-Determination of-Held, it is dif-
C 
ficult to fix up any particular locality as the place of occu"ence of the 
offence-Offence under S.138 not completed only with the dishonour of 
cheque but with the concatenation of a number of acts-Thus, cognizance 
can be taken by any one of those courts exercising jurisdiction within whose 
limits any one of the acts was done. 
S.138, proviso clauses (b) and (c)-Dishonour of cheque-Notice to 
drawe,-.Retumed as 'unclaimed'-Effect of-Held, it can be deemed to have 
been served unless otherwise prove~The reckoning of the period of 15 days 
for the drawer to pay the amount would start from the date the notice was 
returned by the sendee as unclaimed-General Clauses Act, 1897-S.27. 
Cn"minal Procedure Code, 1973. 
Ss.177, 178 and 179-Territoria/ jurisdiction of Courts-Scope and 
extent of. 
S. 386 second proviso-Power of Appellate Court to impose punish-
. ment-Extent of-Held, cannot impose greater punishment than might have 
been inflicted by the Court passing the order under appeal-Award of sentence 
and fine by High Court set aside. 
Ss.29(2) and 357-Power of Magistrate to award fine and compensa-
tion-Scope and extent of-Dishonour of cheque-Power to award fine not 
exceeding five thousand ntpees-Cheque amount exceeding the amount of 
fine-Held, Magistrate can award any reasonable sum as compensa-
D 
E 
F 
G 
tion-Thus, matter remitted to Trial Court for awarding compensation. 
H 
271 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Interpretation of statutes. 
Liberal interpretation-Applicability of-Dishonour of che-
que-Statutory obligation to give notice to drawer of cheque-held, invites 
liberal interpretation as the person who has obligation to give notice is 
presumed to be loser in the transaction and only to protect his interest the 
B provision was enacted-Court should not adopt an interpretation which helps 
a dishonest evader and clips an honest payee as that would defeat the very 
legislative measure. 
c 
Wordt and Phrases : 
'giving a notice'; 'receipt of a notice'-Meaning of in the context of 
S.138(1) of the Negotiable Jnstmments Act, 1881. 
Respondent presented a cheque of rupees one lakh bearing the 
signature of his brother, the appellant before the Bank for encashment. 
D The said cheque bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of 
the appellant. Respondent issued a notice to appellant which returned as 
'unclaimed'. Respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, 
Isl Class under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appellant 
raised the plea that Magistrate Court had no territorial jurisdiction to 
try the case as the Bank which dishonoured the cheque was situated in 
E another District; the cheque was not issued by him and signed blank 
cheques snatched from his possession were utilised; no notice regarding 
dishonour of cheque was received by him and hence no cause of action 
arose. The Trial Court, while holding that the cheque was actually issued 
by the appellant to the respondent, acquitted the accused on thP, grounds 
F that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and also that as the 
appellant had not received the notice no cause of action had arisen. 
However, on appeal, the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal, 
convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 6 months and 
imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty 
of the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [282-A] 
2.1. It is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding 
H the offence under S. 138 of the Act. The locality where the Bank (which 
K. BHASKARAN v. S.V. BALAN 
273 
dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be the sole criteria to deter-
mine the place of offence. The offence under S. 138 of the Act is not 
completed only with the dishonour of cheque but with the concatenation 
of a number of acts. It is not necessary that all the acts should have been 
perpetrated at the same locality. If the acts are done in different localities, 
the complainant can choose any one of those courts exercising jur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.