K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
Rule established
In cases under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (dishonour of cheque), five jurisdictional components exist and the offence can be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of these: place of drawing, presenting, dishonour, issuing notice, or non-payment.
Facts
- A cheque issued in one city was presented for collection in another city, was dishonoured in the drawee bank's city, and the statutory notice was sent from yet another place.
- The complainant filed a complaint under S.138 NI Act at the place where the cheque was presented.
- The accused challenged jurisdiction, arguing only the court where the cheque was drawn had jurisdiction.
Issues
- Which court has territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under S.138 NI Act?
- Whether the offence is committed at one single place or spans multiple locations?
Held
- The offence under S.138 NI Act consists of five components, each of which is a distinct act:
- Drawing of the cheque
- Presentation of the cheque
- Returning/dishonour by the bank
- Giving notice demanding payment
Ratio Decidendi
Where an offence comprises several integral acts occurring at different places, each such place constitutes a valid jurisdictional situs. The complainant may choose any of these places for filing the complaint.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A (6 marks): Cite for jurisdiction in summons trial (S.138 NI Act cases). Key principle: "Five jurisdictional components: any place is valid."
- Part B (15 marks): Essential for: (a) S.211 BNSS and exceptions for multi-location offences, (b) trial of summons cases procedure, (c) legislative changes to S.142(2) NI Act overriding this decision.
Source
Source: SCC
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Trial of Summons Cases by MagistrateJurisdiction in summons cases