Holding

Any court having jurisdiction over any one of the five constituent acts of an offence under Section 138 can try the offence, provided the acts are concatenated.

Summary

The appellant, accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in the Mangalore court, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the constituent acts of the offence occurred in different places (Bangalore and Mangalore). The respondent contended that the notice demanding payment was issued from Mangalore, giving that court jurisdiction. The High Court held that for an offence under Section 138, the five constituent acts (drawing, presentation, return unpaid, notice, and failure to pay) need not occur in the same locality; any court having jurisdiction over any one of those acts may try the case. The Supreme Court, relying on K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ban, affirmed that the concatenation of the five acts is essential, but their geographic dispersion does not preclude jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Mangalore court's jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether a court having jurisdiction over any one of the five constituent acts of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can try the entire offence.
Whether the notice demanding payment, which was returned as 'unclaimed', satisfies the statutory requirement under the proviso to Section 138.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 178(d), s. 482
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138

Subjects

Section 138Negotiable Instruments Actjurisdictioncriminal procedurecheque bouncenotice requirementconcatenation of actsSection 178 CrPCSection 482 CrPC

Judgment

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 : F
[19971 1 sec s10 relied on Para 6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1715 of 2008.
G
,._-..: 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.
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 PASAVAT, 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
petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
l'
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Prayer in the petition was
to quash all proceedings in CC No. 1042 of 2004 on the file of
c 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
ground that the Mangalore Court has no jurisdiction to try the
D 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
"t.
cheque amount. The said actipn took place within Mangalore >---"
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.
B
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
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:
"178. (a)-(c) * * *
(d) where the offence consists of several acts done in E
different local areas,

·~
it may be enquired into or tried by a court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
F
16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done
in five different localities any one of the courts exercising
jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the
place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
In other words, the complainant can chose any one of those G
......
~
courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas
within the territorial limits of which any one of those five
acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and
so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional
question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.
/ )nf' •

A Act..
. .

17. Th~ more importantpoint to be decided in this
case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as
I
the notice s(:mt by the complainant to the accused was
B returned as "unclaimed"; The conditions pertaining to the
notice to be given to the drawer, have been formulated and
incorporated in clauses (b) to (c) of the proviso to Section
138 of the Act. The said clauses are extracted below:

"(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
c cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand. for the
payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice
in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days
of the_ rece ipt of information by him fr~m the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
1

D A;...;

(c) the drawer . of such.. cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as
the case may be, to the holder in due r.ourse of the cheque.
within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice."
E
7. As was noted in K. Bhaskar's case (supra) the offence
under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the
concatentation of a number of acts. The acts which are
components are ;as follows:
,..,,
....

F
(1) Drawing of the cheque;

(2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank;

(3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank;
G
~
(4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque
demanding payment of the cheque amount;

(5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15
days of the receipt of the notice.
H
SHAMSHAD BEGUM v. B. MOHAMMED 193
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

8. It is not necessary that the above five acts should have A
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 Section 138 of the Act.
B
9. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
-y

10. The appeal is dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. c