ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD versus RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 24-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD 
v. 
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.717of2015) 
APRIL24, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR ANDS.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
153 
A 
B 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 -
C 
Complaint under - Territorial jurisdiction for lodging - Post 
the judgment in *Rupsingh Rathod case whereby it was held 
that jurisdiction to try the complaint would be determined by 
reference to the place where cheque is dishonoured- Held: 
*Rupsingh Rathod's case had clarified that pending D 
proceedings where evidence at the post-summoning stage 
had commenced before the date of the judgment, would not 
be dislodged - In the present case, evidence had 
commenced as envisaged by s.145(2) of the 1881 Act, the 
complaint would be maintainable before the Court it was E 
lodged - Territorial Jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the factual position in the F 
present matter, evidence had commenced, as envisaged 
by Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881, in terms of the clarification recorded in *Dashrath 
Rupsingh Rathod's case viz., the proceedings initiated 
prior to the rendering of the judgment in Dashrath G 
*Rupsingh Rathod's case i.e. on 01.08.2014, will be 
preserved at the place they were filed, only when "post 
the summoning and appearance of the alleged accused, 
the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881". Therefore, in the present case, the Metropolitan 
Magistrate before whom the complaint was lodged, will 
be dee !ed to have jurisdiction to entertain the 
controversy arising out of the complaint filed by the 
B appellant u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 
The said Court shall accordingly proceed with the matter, 
in consonance with law. [Paras 5,7) [156-E-F; 157-E-G] 
Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharahstra and 
C 
Anr. (2014) 9 SCC 129- relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2014) 9 sec 129 
relied on. 
Para4 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
E 
F 
Appeal No. 717 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2013 of the 
High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 721 of 2012 
Siddhartha Dave, Abhay Anand Jena, Ranjit Raut, Bina 
Gupta for the Appellant. 
Avijit Bhatacharjee, Upma Shrivastava, Ratan Kumar 
Choudhari for the Respondents. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J. S. KHEHAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
G 
2. Leave granted. 
H 
3. The question is whether the Metropolitan Magistrate, 
11th Court, Calcutta, where the appellant initiated proceedings 
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 
ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD v. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH 
155 
, 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. 
A 
4. Learned counsel for the rival parties have invited our 
attention, to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of 
this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of 
Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9SCC129, and have drawn 
B 
our attention to the following observations recorded therein: 
"22. 
We are quite alive to the magnitude of the 
impact that the present decision shall have to possibly 
lakhs of cases pending in various courts spanning 
across the country. One approach could be to declare 
that this judgment will have only prospective pertinence 
i.e. applicability to complaints that may be filed after 
this pronouncement. However, keeping in perspective 
the hardship that this will continue to bear on alleged 
respondent-accused who may have to travel long 
distances in conducting their defence, and also mindful 
of the legal implications of proceedings being 
permitted to continue in a court devoid of jurisdiction, 
this recourse in entirety does not commend itself to 
us. Consequent on considerable consideration we think 
it expedient to direct that only those cases where, post 
the summoning and appearance of the alleged accused. 
the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged 
in Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
1881, will proceeding continue at that place. To clarify, 
regardless of whether evidence has been led before 
the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by 
affidavit or by oral statement. the complaint will be 
maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands 
dishonoured. To obviate and 
eradicate any legal 
complications. the category of complaint cases where 
proceedings have gone t

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