M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIAPVT. LTD versus INDERPAL SINGH

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 24-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 153 
M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIAPVT. LTD 
v. 
INDERPAL SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1557 of 2015 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 
A 
B 
ss. 138, 142 and 142A - Proceedings uls. 138 -
C 
Territorial jurisdiction for - Held: s. 142(2)(a) as amended 
through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second 
Ordinance, 2015 vests jurisdiction for initiating the 
proceedings in the court where the cheque is delivered for 
collection, where the payee/holder of cheque maintains an D 
account - Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction. 
s. 142A - Vis-a-vis provisions of Cr. P. C. - Overriding 
effect of- Held: In view of non-obstante clause in sub section 
(1) of s. 142Aprovisions of Cr.P.C. would have to give way to E 
the provisions of the Act, on the issue of jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 142(2)(a) of Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 amended through the Negotiable F 
Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, 
ve$ts jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the 
offence u/s. 138 of the 1881 Act, inter alia in the territorial 
jurisdiction of the court, where the cheque is delivered 
for collection (through an account of the branch of the G 
bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains 
an account). [Para 12] [162-D-E] 
2. Insofar as the offence u/s. 138 is concerned, on 
the Issue of jurisdiction, the provisions of the Code of 
.153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A Criminal Procedure, 1973, would have to give way to the 
provisions of the instant enactment on account of the 
non·obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 142A. 
Likewise, any judgment, decree, order or direction issued 
by a Court would have no effect insofar as the territorial 
B jurisdiction for initiating proceedings u/s. 138 Act is 
concerned. Thus, the judgment rendered by this Court 
In *Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, would not stand 
In the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial 
jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the 
C dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises. [Paras 
11and12] [161·H; 162-A·B, F] 
3. In the present case, since cheque drawn on the 
Bank at Chandigarh, was presented for encashment at 
o the Bank at Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the 
appellant, the Judicial.Magistrate, at Indore, would have 
the territorial jurisdiction to taket:ognizance of the 
proceedings initiated by the appellant u/s. 138 after the 
promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments 
E (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 20.15. The words " ••• as 
If that sub-section had been in force at all material 
times ..• " used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 
142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision. [Para 13] 
F 
[162·G·H; 163-A·B] 
• Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of 
Maharashtra and Anr. (2014) 9 SCC 129- held 
inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference 
G (2014) 9 SCC 129 
held inapplicable 
Para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1557 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2011 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in M. Cr. C Mp. 2677 
H of 2010 
M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIAPVT. LTD. v. INDERPALSINGH 155 
WITH 
A 
Crl. A. Nos. 1562, 1563 and 1564 of 2015. 
Wills Mathews, M. P. Upadhyay, Ginesh P., Devendra 
KumarTiwari, P. George Giri for the Appellant. 
S. K. Verma for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. Criminal Appeal 
No.1557 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.\No.7850 of 2011) 
1. Leave granted. 
C 
2. Despite service, no one has entered appearance on 
behalf of the respondent. 
3. Acheuqe No.1950, drawn on the Union Bank of India, 
Chandigarh, was issued by lnderpal Singh (the respondent D 
herein) to the appellant-Mis Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. The 
cheque was in the sum of Rs.26,958/-. The appellant:- M/s 
Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. presented the above cheque at the 
IDBI Bank in Indore. The appellant received intimation of its 
being dishonoured on account of" ... exceeds arrangement. .. " E 
on 04.08.2006 at Indore. 
4. The appellant issued a legal notice on 26.08.2006, 
which was served on the respondent - lnderpal Singh on 
06.09.2006, demanding the amount depicted in the cheque. F 
The appellant informed the respondent, that he would be 
compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if payment was not made 
by the responde

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