Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Facts

• A cheque was issued by the drawer in one state and presented by the payee at his bank in another state
• The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds
• The complainant filed under S.138 at the court where his bank was located (place of presentation)
• The drawer challenged jurisdiction, arguing the offence was committed where the cheque was drawn

Issue

1. Which court has territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under S.138: the place where the cheque was drawn/delivered, or the place where it was presented/dishonoured?

Held

• The Court held that the offence under S.138 is committed at the place where the cheque was drawn or delivered. This is where the "offence" takes place for jurisdictional purposes. The place of presentation or dishonour is merely where the consequence occurs, not where the offence is committed. Therefore, the complainant must file at the drawer's location.
• Legislative Overruling: Parliament disagreed with this interpretation (which was harsh on complainants) and inserted S.142A via the NI (Amendment) Act, 2015, which provides that jurisdiction lies at the court where the payee's/complainant's bank branch is located.

Ratio Decidendi

(Now overruled) Jurisdiction for S.138 lies where the cheque was delivered to the payee, being the situs of the offence. Post-2015: S.142A provides jurisdiction at the court within whose local limits the payee's bank branch is situated.