SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM versus B. MOHAMMED

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 03-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
/ 
SHAMSHAD BEGUM v. 8. MOHAMMED 
189 
in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding A 
payment of the cheque amount and since the said action 
took pla-ce within Mangalore jurisdiction, therefore, the 
petition was without merit. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: The offence under s. 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 can be completed only with the 
concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are 
components are: drawing of the cheque; presentation of C 
the cheque to the bank; returning the cheque unpaid by 
the drawee bank; giving notice in writing to the drawer 
of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount 
and failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days 
of the receipt of the notice. It is not necessary that the 
0 
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 s. 138 of the Act. [Para 
E 
7 and 8] (192-E-H; 193-A-B] 
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an & Anr., [1999) 
7 sec 51 o, relied on. 
Case Law Reference : 
[19971 1 sec s10 
relied on 
Para 6 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1715 of 2008. 
,._-..: 
From the Order dated 8.11.2005 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Petition No. 939/2005. 
Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 15 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
S.N. Bhat for the Respondent. 
-~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~-
DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the 
l' 
petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Prayer in the petition was 
c 
to quash all proceedings in CC No. 1042 of 2004 on the file of 
learned Vth JMF Court Mangalore. Appellant is the accused · 
in the aforesaid case in relation to an offence punishable under 
Section 138 of the Negotiabl~ Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 
the 'Act'). The petition was filed before the High Court on the 
D 
ground that the Mangalore Court has no jurisdiction to try the 
'.:;'.______ 
case. -It was stated-that the agreement between the parties was 
, 
entered into Bangalore an_d the parties live in Mangalore and 
} 
.....-~
the cheque were returned from the banks at Bangalore and 
.... _, 
therefore the Bangalore Court has jurisdiction to try the case. 
E 
3. In response, the respondent had submitted that before 
issuing notice to the appellant he had shifted his residence to 
Mangalore _and therefore he had issued the notice from 
Mangalore which was received by the appellant and the reply 
was sent by her to the complainant to the Mangalore address. 
')----~ 
F Therefore, as one of the components of the said offence i.e. 
notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding 
payment of cheque amount was sent from Mangalore, Court at 
Mangalore had jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court noted 
that one of the components ofthe offence was giving notice in 
' t: 
G writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the 
" 
cheque amount. The said actipn took place within Mangalore 
>---" 
t. 
jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition was without merit. It was 
however stated that if the presence of the appellant was not 
very necessary for continuation of the proceeding, on 
) 
H 
t
SHAMSHAD BEGUM v. B. MOHAMMED 
191 
. ":-.......; 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
appropriate application being filed, the court can grant A 
exemption from appearance. 
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant 
submitted that the Court at Mangalore had no jurisdiction. 
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 
B 
y 
supported the judgment of the High Court. 
6. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an & Anr., 
[19971 7 sec 510, it was inter alia observed as follows: 
c 
"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 
D 
138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 
178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:

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