2025 INSC 1362 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1099 OF 2025

(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) D. NO. 24362 OF 2025)

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)

Versus

M/S HEG LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1100 OF 2025

(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) D. NO. 24506 OF 2025 )

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1101 OF 2025

(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) D. NO. 24500 OF 2025 )

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1102 OF 2025

(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) D. NO. 24493 OF 2025 )

J U D G M E N T

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 1 of 60

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following

parts:

INDEX

A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................. 3

B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ....................................................... 6

C. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 6

(i) Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts prior to the

Amendment Act, 2015 ............................................................................ 7

a. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Bhaskaran .................... 7

b. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Harman

Electronics .......................................................................................... 13

c. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh

Rathod ................................................................................................ 18

(ii) Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts after the enactment

of the Amendment Act, 2015................................................................ 27

a. Meaning of the expressions “delivered for collection through an

account” and “presentation for payment otherwise through an

account” .............................................................................................. 30

b. Meaning of the expression “maintains an account” under Section

142(2) .................................................................................................. 35

c. Conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation

thereto ................................................................................................. 38

(iii) Determination of the issues framed .................................................... 57

a. Whether the MM, Kolkata has the jurisdiction to try the

complaint? ........................................................................................... 57

b. Whether a case of transfer of the complaint from the court of JMFC,

Bhopal to MM, Kolkata is made out?................................................. 58

D. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 60

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 2 of 60

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned transfer petitions are the same,

those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by

this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Transfer Petition (Criminal) Diary No.

24362 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter.

3. This transfer petition filed under Section 446 of the Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “BNSS”) read with Order XXXIX of

the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is at the instance of a private limited

company through its directors, praying for transfer of the Complaint Case

No. RCT 2501046/2017 titled as "M/s HEG Limited vs Jai Balaji Industries

Ltd. & Ors” pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal

to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. The transfer is prayed for

on the ground that this Court, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 had held that cases where the

trial had reached the stage of summoning, appearance of accused, and the

recording of evidence had commenced as per Section 145(2) Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “Act, 1881”), those should continue in

the same court where the trial was ongoing.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 3 of 60

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The petitioner no. 1 herein (Jai Balaji Industries Ltd.) is the original accused

no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “accused company”), while the other

petitioners are the directors of the accused company. The respondent (M/s

HEG Limited), is the original complainant (hereinafter referred to as the

“complainant company” or “complainant”).

5. A cheque for the amount of Rs. 19,94,996/- was drawn by the accused

company through its directors, against an invoice generated by the

complainant company, dated 23.03.2014. The cheque was drawn by the

accused on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kolkata and the same was

deposited by the complainant on 19.06.2014 in its account maintained with

the State Bank of India, Bhopal branch.

6. The cheque referred to above came to be dishonoured due to insufficiency

of funds on 20.06.2025 pursuant to which, the complainant issued the

statutory notice dated 11.07.2014 to all the accused persons through

registered speed post A/D, demanding that the sum of Rs. 19,94,996/- be

paid within a period of 15 days as prescribed under Section 138 of the Act,

1881 in lieu of the dishonoured cheque. The said notice was delivered on

14.07.2014.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 4 of 60

7. The accused company replied vide the letter dated 26.07.2014 which was

received by the complainant on 30.07.2014, wherein all the accused persons

took the defence that the said cheque had been issued as a ‘Security Deposit’

and not in discharge of any enforceable debt. As a result, the complainant

company filed the Complaint Case No. 406978 of 2014 in the court of the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata (the “MM, Kolkata”) on 16.08.2014. The

same was registered on 29.01.2015 and summons were issued to the accused

company and other accused persons on 29.01.2015. Consequently, the MM,

Kolkata proceeded to frame charge to which the accused persons pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 27.04.2015, the affidavit of evidence-

in-chief of the complainant company’s officer was taken on record by the

MM, Kolkata.

8. While the case was pending before the MM, Kolkata, the Government

enacted the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (the

“Amendment Act, 2015”) on 26.12.2015. In accordance with the terms of

the amendment to the Act, 1881, more particularly, Section 142 thereof, the

territorial jurisdiction for prosecution and trial of cases registered under

Section 138 was stipulated to be at the place where the payee or holder

maintains his bank account. In this case, the payee, i.e., the complainant

company maintained its bank account with the State Bank of India, Bhopal

branch.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 5 of 60

9. Upon request made by the complainant company, the MM, Kolkata returned

the complaint to the respondent vide order dated 28.07.2016 observing that

it lacked the jurisdiction to conduct trial for the case in hand and allowed the

complainant to present the matter before the court of competent jurisdiction.

10. In such circumstances referred to above, the complainant company got the

complaint for dishonour of cheque registered in the court of the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bhopal (the “JMFC, Bhopal”) bearing Complaint

Case No. RCT 1501046 of 2017. The accused company raised an objection

as regards the territorial jurisdiction of the JMFC, Bhopal to try the offence

relying on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “Act,

1973”). Besides according to the accused persons, the MM, Kolkata could

not have returned the complaint once the recording of evidence as per

Section 145(2) had already commenced. However, the said objections were

rejected by the JMFC, Bhopal. The same was then challenged by the accused

persons vide Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court, Bhopal which is

still pending adjudication.

11. Be that as it may, the question before us is not one relating to the merits of

the claims of the parties herein. What is discernible is the fact that the cheque

so issued was dishonoured, and the sum for which such cheque was drawn

was not made good by the accused despite a statutory notice. This

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 6 of 60

conspectus of facts has enabled the complainant to prosecute the accused

and the sole controversy before us is as to which court has the territorial

jurisdiction to try the accused persons for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Act, 1881.

B. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone

through the materials on record, the following two questions fall for our

consideration:

i. Whether after the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015, the court

within whose local jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, has the

jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138?

ii. Whether after the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015, a complaint

under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 can be transferred to the court

within whose local jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, if the

recording of evidence under Section 145 has already commenced in the

said court?

C. ANALYSIS

13. Before adverting to the conspectus of facts before us, we must discuss or

rather clarify the position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts to entertain

complaints under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 especially after the

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 7 of 60

introduction of Sections 142(2) and 142A respectively by the Amendment

Act, 2015. For that, we must look into few judgments of this Court to better

understand the legal backdrop in which the present dispute has arisen.

(i) Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts prior to the

Amendment Act, 2015

14. Prior to the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015, the issue relating to

territorial jurisdiction was quite complex. With a view to dispel any doubt

and lend clarity, this Court, in several of its judgments, had addressed the

issue of jurisdiction.

a. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Bhaskaran

15. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in (1999) 7 SCC

510, this Court addressed itself on the issue of territorial jurisdiction in

detail.

16. In the said case, the cheque was issued by the accused at Adoor, Kerala and

the same was presented by the complainant at the bank in Kayamkulam,

Kerala, for encashment. The drawee bank dishonoured the cheque due to

funds being insufficient in the account of the accused. Consequently, the

complainant therein issued the statutory notice as required under Section 138

of the Act, 1881 but the same remained unclaimed and not delivered to the

accused as the addressee (the accused) was not found at the address

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 8 of 60

mentioned in the notice. The complainant proceeded to file the complaint

before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Adoor (“JMFC,

Adoor”).

17. The accused questioned the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Adoor on the ground

that the cheque was dishonoured at the bank situated in Kayamkulam where

the complainant had presented the cheque for encashment and therefore,

there was no occasion for the complainant to file a case at Adoor. The JMFC,

Adoor accepted the said submission canvassed by the accused and held that

he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as the cheque was

dishonoured in a different district of Kerala. On the other hand, the High

Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and held that since the cheque was

issued at Adoor, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the JMFC, Adoor,

he was competent to conduct the trial in respect of the complaint.

18. This Court took the view that the JMFC, Adoor had erroneously held that

the trial of the complaint was outside its jurisdiction. It was observed that

although Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”)

lays down the rule that every offence must be tried by a court within whose

jurisdiction it was committed, yet this rule was not invariable. Situations that

may present uncertainty as regards the question of jurisdiction are accounted

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 9 of 60

for by the CrPC, more particularly Section 178 thereof. Section 178 reads

thus:

“178. Place of inquiry or trial.

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an

offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area

and partly in another, or

(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be

committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local

areas,

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction

over any of such local areas.”

19. The plain reading of Section 178(d) referred to above clarifies that when it

is not possible to answer the question of jurisdiction with certainty due to

several acts having been done in different local areas, the offence could be

tried in a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

20. This Court highlighted that the offence under Section 138 is a consequence

of the dishonour of cheque but such dishonour by itself does not result in the

offence unless and until the following acts are established:

(i) Drawing of the cheque,

(ii) Presentation of the cheque to the bank,

(iii) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank,

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 10 of 60

(iv) Issuing notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding

payment of the cheque amount,

(v) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of

the notice.

21. This Court held that the complainant may choose to lodge his complaint in

any court exercising jurisdiction over the localities where the aforesaid acts

may have been done. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced

below:

“11. We fail to comprehend as to how the trial court could

have found so regarding the jurisdiction question. Under

Section 177 of the Code “every offence shall ordinarily be

enquired into and tried in a court within whose jurisdiction it

was committed”. The locality where the Bank (which

dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be regarded as

the sole criterion to determine the place of offence. It must be

remembered that offence under Section 138 would not be

completed with the dishonour of the cheque. It attains

completion only with the failure of the drawer of the cheque

to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days

mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the

Act. It is normally difficult to fix up a particular locality as

the place of failure to pay the amount covered by the cheque.

A place, for that purpose, would depend upon a variety of

factors. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides

or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where

either of them carries on business. Hence, the difficulty to fix

up any particular locality as the place of occurrence for the

offence under Section 138 of the Act.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 11 of 60

12. Even otherwise the rule that every offence shall be tried

by a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed is not

an unexceptional or unchangeable principle. Section 177

itself has been framed by the legislature thoughtfully by using

the precautionary word “ordinarily” to indicate that the rule

is not invariable in all cases. Section 178 of the Code

suggests that if there is uncertainty as to where, among

different localities, the offence would have been committed

the trial can be had in a court having jurisdiction over any of

those localities. The provision has further widened the scope

by stating that in case where the offence was committed

partly in one local area and partly in another local area the

court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try

the case. Further again, Section 179 of the Code stretches its

scope to a still wider horizon. It reads thus:

“179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence

ensues.—When an act is an offence by reason of anything

which has been done and of a consequence which has

ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a court

within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done

or such consequence has ensued.”

13. The above provisions in the Code should have been borne

in mind when the question regarding territorial jurisdiction

of the courts to try the offence was sought to be determined.

14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be

completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts.

The following are the acts which are components of the said

offence: (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the

cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the

drawee bank, (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.

15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have

been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 12 of 60

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 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

different local areas,

it may be enquired into or tried by a court having

jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”

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 choose any one of those

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 Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

22. The decision in Bhaskaran (supra) took into account or rather highlighted

that Section 138 would get attracted upon commission of multifarious acts.

Such acts may not always share local areas and might have been done in

different jurisdictions. It was recognized that the special nature of the

offence contained in the said section gave rise to jurisdictional ambiguity

which was hindering the complainants’ litigations to recover their money.

To remedy the mischief that was being perpetuated by the absence of a

specific jurisdiction, this Court held that the amplitude of the offence under

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 13 of 60

Section 138 was so wide as to confer jurisdiction on all the courts in whose

territorial jurisdiction any of the five acts as mentioned above, might have

been committed.

b. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Harman Electronics

23. In Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd.,

reported in (2009) 1 SCC 720, the cheque was issued by the drawer in

Chandigarh and was presented by the complainant in Chandigarh itself. The

complainant sent the statutory notice under Section 138 from Delhi which

was admittedly served on the drawer in Chandigarh. Upon non-clearance of

dues, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 before the

Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (the “ASJ, Delhi”).

24. It was the grievance of the accused therein that although most of the acts

required to constitute an offence under Section 138 were committed in

Chandigarh, yet the complainant had filed the complaint in the court at New

Delhi only on the strength of the fact that the statutory notice was issued in

Delhi. The accused therein had contended that this by itself would amount

to absurdity if the complaint was entertained in Delhi.

25. The ASJ, Delhi held that the court in Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to

conduct trial in respect of the complaint as the statutory notice was sent by

the complainant from Delhi. The High Court of Delhi affirmed the decision

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 14 of 60

of the ASJ, Delhi saying that this Court’s judgment in Bhaskaran (supra)

had clarified that if five different acts constituting the offence under Section

138 were found to have been done in five different localities, any one of the

courts exercising jurisdiction in one of such five areas could become the

place of trial. The High Court held that the issuance of statutory notice being

one of the acts mandatory for the completion of an offence under Section

138, the court in Delhi exercising territorial jurisdiction over the place from

which the statutory notice was issued, would have the jurisdiction to try the

complaint.

26. The question that fell for the consideration of this Court was whether the

sending of notice from Delhi, by itself would give rise to a cause of action

for taking cognizance under Section 138.

27. This Court held that the cause of action for proceeding against an accused

person under Section 138 would arise not from the mere sending of the

statutory notice but rather from its receipt by the accused person. The object

behind sending of notice was considered by this Court and it was observed

that it is only upon receipt of the notice that an accused person may elect to

either pay the amount due and payable within a period of 15 days or not to

pay the same. Therefore, issuance of notice by itself would not give rise to

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 15 of 60

a cause of action. The service of notice is imperative as it is only when the

communication thereof is complete that the cause of action arises.

28. This Court also noted that allowing multitudinous courts the jurisdiction to

try a single complaint would enable or rather place a complainant in the

position to misuse the law and cause harassment to the accused.

29. In light of such considerations, this Court held that though the statutory

notice was sent from Delhi, yet its receipt was recorded in Chandigarh. As

the cause of action accrued in Chandigarh, it was held that the court in Delhi

had no jurisdiction to try the matter. The relevant portions of the judgment

are reproduced below:

“12. The complaint petition does not show that the cheque

was presented at Delhi. It is absolutely silent in that regard.

The facility for collection of the cheque admittedly was

available at Chandigarh and the said facility was availed of.

The certificate dated 24-6-2003, which was not produced

before the learned court taking cognizance, even if taken into

consideration does not show that the cheque was presented

at the Delhi branch of Citibank. We, therefore, have no other

option but to presume that the cheque was presented at

Chandigarh. Indisputably, the dishonour of the cheque also

took place at Chandigarh. The only question, therefore,

which arises for consideration is that as to whether sending

of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action

for taking cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

13. It is one thing to say that sending of a notice is one of the

ingredients for maintaining the complaint but it is another

thing to say that dishonour of a cheque by itself constitutes

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 16 of 60

an offence. For the purpose of proving its case that the

accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the ingredients thereof are

required to be proved. What would constitute an offence is

stated in the main provision. The proviso appended thereto,

however, imposes certain further conditions which are

required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can

be taken. If the ingredients for constitution of the offence laid

down in provisos (a), (b) and (c) appended to Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act are intended to be applied in

favour of the accused, there cannot be any doubt that receipt

of a notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of action

for filing a complaint. As it is only on receipt of the notice

that the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the

amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138

therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not

by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of

the notice would.

---xxx---

17. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

determines the jurisdiction of a court trying the matter. The

court ordinarily will have the jurisdiction only where the

offence has been committed. The provisions of Sections 178

and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exceptions to

Section 177. These provisions presuppose that all offences

are local. Therefore, the place where an offence has been

committed plays an important role. It is one thing to say that

a presumption is raised that notice is served but it is another

thing to say that service of notice may not be held to be of any

significance or may be held to be wholly unnecessary. (…)

---xxx---

19. Presumption raised in support of service of notice would

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Its

application is on the question of law or the fact obtaining.

Presumption has to be raised not on the hypothesis or

surmises but if the foundational facts are laid down therefor.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 17 of 60

Only because presumption of service of notice is possible to

be raised at the trial, the same by itself may not be a ground

to hold that the distinction between giving of notice and

service of notice ceases to exist.

20. Indisputably all statutes deserve their strict application,

but while doing so the cardinal principles therefor cannot be

lost sight of. A court derives a jurisdiction only when the

cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The same cannot

be conferred by any act of omission or commission on the

part of the accused. A distinction must also be borne in mind

between the ingredient of an offence and commission of a

part of the offence. While issuance of a notice by the holder

of a negotiable instrument is necessary, service thereof is

also imperative. Only on a service of such notice and failure

on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within

a period of 15 days thereafter, the commission of an offence

completes. Giving of notice, therefore, cannot have any

precedent over the service. It is only from that view of the

matter that in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy

Traders & Agencies Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 463 : 2001 SCC

(Cri) 1163 : AIR 2001 SC 676] emphasis has been laid on

service of notice.

21. We cannot, as things stand today, be oblivious of the fact

that a banking institution holding several cheques signed by

the same borrower can not only present the cheque for its

encashment at four different places but also may serve

notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four

complaint cases at four different places. This only causes

grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary

in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the right

of the complainant and the right of an accused vis-à-vis the

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

(Emphasis supplied)

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 18 of 60

30. This Court, while applying the principles relating to jurisdiction as laid down

in Bhaskaran (supra), explained the legal effect of the act of sending the

statutory notice under Section 138 for the purpose of determining the

jurisdiction to try a complaint thereunder. It was recognized that conferring

jurisdiction on the locality from where the notice was sent would give

unfettered powers to a complainant to set jurisdiction at a particular location

that may be inconvenient or cause undue hardship to the accused person.

Thus, the dictum in Harman Electronics (supra) curtailed the wide

jurisdictional empowerment expounded in Bhaskaran (supra) to some

extent.

c. Analysis of the observations of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh

Rathod

31. This Court, in its landmark decision in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra), was

faced with the conundrum of jurisdictional ambiguity for trial of offence

under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 posed by the differing interpretations

thereof expounded in Bhaskaran (supra), Harman Electronics (supra) and

Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals respectively and several other

judgments.

32. A three-Judge Bench recognized the position of law in this regard as settled

by Bhaskaran (supra), as well as the limits placed on wide jurisdiction by

Harman Electronics (supra). While analysing these decisions, this Court

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 19 of 60

observed that Bhaskaran (supra) adopted a liberal approach influenced by

a curial compassion towards the unpaid payee. It was also noted that such

approach was prone to abuse and had resulted in miscarriage of justice over

the years.

33. This Court was of the view that for the purpose of determining jurisdiction,

the commission of crime ought to be distinguished from its prosecution. It

was held that though the five concomitants of Section 138 enabled

prosecution of the offence thereunder, yet the offence itself came to be

committed as soon as the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank. As

a natural consequence, only the court exercising jurisdiction over the

territory where the offence, i.e., the dishonour of cheque, was committed,

was clothed with the power to try a complaint in respect of such offence.

The relevant portions of the judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) are

reproduced below:

“10. It is axiomatic that when a court interprets any statutory

provision, its opinion must apply to and be determinate in all

factual and legal permutations and situations. We think that

the dictum in Ishar Alloy [Shri Ishar Alloy Steels

Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 609 : 2001 SCC

(Cri) 582] is very relevant and conclusive to the discussion

in hand. It also justifies emphasis that Ishar Alloy [Shri Ishar

Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 609 :

2001 SCC (Cri) 582] is the only case before us which was

decided by a three-Judge Bench and, therefore, was binding

on all smaller Benches. We ingeminate that it is the drawee

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 20 of 60

Bank and not the complainant's bank which is postulated in

the so-called second constituent of Section 138 of the NI Act,

and it is this postulate that spurs us towards the conclusion

that we have arrived at in the present appeals. There is also

a discussion of Harman [Harman Electronics (P)

Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720

: (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 332 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 610] to

reiterate that the offence under Section 138 is complete only

when the five factors are present. It is our considered view,

which we shall expound upon, that the offence in the

contemplation of Section 138 of the NI Act is the dishonour

of the cheque alone, and it is the concatenation of the five

concomitants of that section that enable the prosecution of

the offence in contradistinction to the completion/commission

of the offence.

11. We have also painstakingly perused Escorts Ltd. [Escorts

Ltd. v. Rama Mukherjee, (2014) 2 SCC 255 : (2014) 1 SCC

(Civ) 789 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 808] which was also decided

by the Nishant [Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar

Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 72 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 627 : (2013)

3 SCC (Cri) 189] two-Judge Bench. Previous decisions were

considered, eventually leading to the conclusion that since

the cheque concerned had been presented for encashment at

New Delhi, its Metropolitan Magistrate possessed territorial

jurisdiction to entertain and decide the subject complaint

under Section 138 of the NI Act. Importantly, in a subsequent

order, in FIL Industries Ltd. v. Imtiyaz Ahmed Bhat [(2014)

2 SCC 266 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 800 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri)

58] passed on 12-8-2013, it was decided that the place from

where the statutory notice had emanated would not of its own

have the consequence of vesting jurisdiction upon that place.

Accordingly, it bears repetition that the ratio

in Bhaskaran [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan,

(1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] has been

drastically diluted in that the situs of the notice, one of the so-

called five ingredients of Section 138, has now been held not

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 21 of 60

to clothe that court with territorial competency. The

conflicting or incongruent opinions need to be resolved.”

(Emphasis supplied)

34. The aforesaid exposition stands fortified by the plain language of Section

138 of the Act, 1881. The primary part of the Section delineates the return

of a cheque unpaid by the person who issued such cheque as an offence.

However, the conditions stipulated in the proviso to the Section indicate that

though the offence may come into existence upon dishonour of cheque, the

consequences arising therefrom would be kept in abeyance till the time the

concomitants contained in the provisory portion of the Section are also

completed. In other words, the ingredients contained in the provisory portion

of Section 138 are necessarily to be fulfilled to successfully initiate

prosecution in respect of the offence of dishonour of cheque which is

committed when the cheque is returned unpaid by the drawee bank. The

relevant paragraphs of the judgment read thus:

“18. Section 138 of the NI Act is structured in two parts—the

primary and the provisory. It must be kept in mind that the

legislature does not ordain with one hand and immediately

negate it with the other. The proviso often carves out a minor

detraction or diminution of the main provision of which it is

an appendix or addendum or auxiliary. Black's Law

Dictionary states in the context of a proviso that it is

“[a] limitation or exception to a grant made or authority

conferred, the effect of which is to declare that the one

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 22 of 60

shall not operate, or the other be exercised, unless in the

case provided.

A clause or part of a clause in a statute, the office of which is

either to except something from the enacting clause, or to

qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible

ground of misinterpretation of its extent”.

It should also be kept in perspective that a proviso or a

condition are synonymous. In our perception in the case in

hand the contents of the proviso place conditions on the

operation of the main provision, while it does (sic not) form

a constituent of the crime itself, it modulates or regulates the

crime in circumstances where, unless its provisions are

complied with, the already committed crime remains

impervious to prosecution. The proviso to Section 138 of the

NI Act features three factors which are additionally required

for prosecution to be successful. In this aspect Section 142

correctly employs the term “cause of action” as compliance

with the three factors contained in the proviso are essential

for the cognizance of the offence, even though they are not

part of the action constituting the crime. To this extent we

respectfully concur with Bhaskaran [K.

Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 :

1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] in that the concatenation of all these

concomitants, constituents or ingredients of Section 138 of

the NI Act, is essential for the successful initiation or launch

of the prosecution. We, however, are of the view that so far

as the offence itself the proviso has no role to play.

Accordingly a reading of Section 138 of the NI Act in

conjunction with Section 177 CrPC leaves no manner of

doubt that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone

constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the

place where the offence is committed.

19. In this analysis we hold that the place, situs or venue of

judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be

restricted to where the drawee bank is located. The law

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 23 of 60

should not be warped for commercial exigencies. As it is

Section 138 of the NI Act has introduced a deeming fiction of

culpability, even though, Section 420 is still available in case

the payee finds it advantageous or convenient to proceed

under that provision. An interpretation should not be

imparted to Section 138 which will render it as a device of

harassment i.e. by sending notices from a place which has no

causal connection with the transaction itself, and/or by

presenting the cheque(s) at any of the banks where the payee

may have an account. In our discernment, it is also now

manifest that traders and businessmen have become reckless

and incautious in extending credit where they would

heretofore have been extremely hesitant, solely because of the

availability of redress by way of criminal proceedings. It is

always open to the creditor to insist that the cheques in

question be made payable at a place of the creditor's

convenience. Today's reality is that every Magistracy is

inundated with prosecutions under Section 138 of the NI Act,

so much so that the burden is becoming unbearable and

detrimental to the disposal of other equally pressing

litigation. We think that courts are not required to twist the

law to give relief to incautious or impetuous persons; beyond

Section 138 of the NI Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35. It was further observed in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) that the infusion of

the concept of ‘cause of action’ in criminal proceedings as done by

Bhaskaran (supra) perpetuated ambiguity relating to jurisdiction by

allowing filing of a complaint under Section 138 at multiple venues. This

Court held that the interpretation of Sections 177 and 178 of the CrPC

respectively, set forth in the said judgment ran counter to the approach of

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 24 of 60

simplifying law. It was observed that Section 178 despite being an exception

to Section 177 which informs about criminal jurisdiction ordinarily, did not

envisage the concept of ‘cause of action’ as being a consideration germane

for determining territorial jurisdiction in criminal trials. Therefore, the plain

meaning obtained from Sections 177 and 178 respectively ought not to be

warped for commercial exigencies and the logical conclusion flowing

therefrom can only be that territorial jurisdiction was anchored at the place

where the offence was committed. The relevant portions of the judgment are

reproduced below:

“16.1. Unlike civil actions, where the plaintiff has the burden

of filing and proving its case, the responsibility of

investigating a crime, marshalling evidence and witnesses,

rests with the State. Therefore, while the convenience of the

defendant in a civil action may be relevant, the convenience

of the so-called complainant/victim has little or no role to

play in criminal prosecution. Keeping in perspective the

presence of the word “ordinarily” in Section 177 CrPC, we

hasten to adumbrate that the exceptions to it are contained in

CrPC itself, that is, in the contents of the succeeding Section

178. CrPC also contains an explication of “complaint” as

any allegation to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action

in respect of the commission of an offence; not being a police

report. Prosecution ensues from a complaint or police report

for the purpose of determining the culpability of a person

accused of the commission of a crime; and unlike a civil

action or suit is carried out (or “prosecuted”) by the State or

its nominated agency. The principal definition of

“prosecution” imparted by Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.

is

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 25 of 60

“[a] criminal action; a proceeding instituted and carried

on by due course of law, before a competent tribunal, for

the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of a

person charged with crime”.

These reflections are necessary because Section 142(b) of the

NI Act contains the words, “the cause of action arises under

clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138”, resulting arguably,

but in our opinion irrelevantly, to the blind borrowing of

essentially civil law attributes onto criminal proceedings.

16.2. We reiterate that Section 178 admits of no debate that

in criminal prosecution, the concept of “cause of action”,

being the bundle of facts required to be proved in a suit and

accordingly also being relevant for the place of suing, is not

pertinent or germane for determining territorial jurisdiction

of criminal trials. Section 178 CrPC explicitly states that

every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a

court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 179 is of similar tenor. We are also unable to locate

any provision of the NI Act which indicates or enumerates the

extraordinary circumstances which would justify a departure

from the stipulation that the place where the offence is

committed is where the prosecution has to be conducted. In

fact, since cognizance of the offence is subject to the

five Bhaskaran [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan,

(1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] components or

concomitants the concatenation of which ripens the already

committed offence under Section 138 of the NI Act into a

prosecutable offence, the employment of the phrase “cause

of action” in Section 142 of the NI Act is apposite for taking

cognizance, but inappropriate and irrelevant for determining

commission of the subject offence. There are myriad

examples of the commission of a crime the prosecution of

which is dependent on extraneous contingencies such as

obtainment of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similar situation is

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 26 of 60

statutorily created by Section 19 of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986; Section 11 of the Central Sales Tax

Act, 1956; Section 279 of the Income Tax Act; Sections 132

and 308 CrPC; Section 137 of the Customs Act, etc. It would

be idle to contend that the offence comes into existence only

on the grant of permission for prosecution, or that this

permission constitutes an integral part of the offence itself. It

would also be futile to argue that the place where the

permission is granted would provide the venue for the trial.

If sanction is not granted the offence does not vanish.

Equally, if sanction is granted from a place other than where

the crime is committed, it is the latter which will remain the

place for its prosecution.”

(Emphasis supplied)

36. It is abundantly clear from the aforesaid that in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra),

this Court viewed the question of jurisdiction strictly from the lens of

‘territoriality of offences’. In other words, the payee cannot select the

jurisdiction for trial of an offence under Section 138 by presentation of the

cheque at a location of his choosing. Though the presentation of cheque at

any branch of the payee’s bank is permitted by the Act, 1881 for the purposes

of commercial convenience, yet it cannot be said that such act of

presentation confers jurisdiction on the court within whose territorial

jurisdiction the said bank branch may be situated.

37. Since an offence under Section 138 could be said to be committed upon

dishonour of cheque by the drawee bank, it was held that such offence would

be localised at the place where the drawee bank is situated. Therefore, only

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 27 of 60

the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, is

empowered to proceed against an accused person under Section 138.

(ii) Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts after the

enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015

38. The exposition of law in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) resulted in several

representations from the commercial sector to the government, registering

protests against the accused-centric interpretation of the jurisdictional issue

adopted by this Court. Such representations were considered by the

Parliament and the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 was

enacted by the Parliament to inter alia, clarify the issue of jurisdiction to try

the offence under Section 138.

39. The Amendment Act, 2015 introduced sub-section (2) to Section 142 of the

Act, 1881. The amended Section 142 reads thus:

“142. Cognizance of offences.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable

under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made

by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course

of the cheque;

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on

which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the

proviso to section 138:

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 28 of 60

Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by

the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant

satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making

a complaint within such period;

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or

a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence

punishable under section 138.

(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and

tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,--

(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an

account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in

due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is

situated; or

(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or

holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the

branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the

account, is situated.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of clause (a), where a

cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank

of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall

be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank

in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may

be, maintains the account.”

(Emphasis supplied)

40. A bare textual reading of the amended Section 142 indicates that the

jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 has been specified in two

circumstances: first, when the cheque is delivered for collection through an

account, and secondly, when the cheque is presented for payment otherwise

through an account. It is also worth noting that the Explanation to Section

142(2)(a) further clarifies the question of jurisdiction by taking into account

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 29 of 60

the realities of negotiating by way of cheques and the technological

advancement in the field. However, this Court as well as the High Courts

have been divided over the conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the

Explanation thereto.

41. We find it necessary to resolve this controversy and eliminate divergent

positions in this regard, and for that we must understand the true import of

the amendments made to Section 142. In such view of the matter, it is

apposite to consider the following definitions:

• “Drawer” refers to the maker of a bill of exchange or cheque [See:

Section 7 of the Act, 1881].

• “Drawee” refers to the person who is directed to pay the amount

specified in the bill of exchange or cheque made by the drawer [See:

Section 7 of the Act, 1881].

• “Payee” refers to the person named in the instrument, to whom or to

whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid [See:

Section 7 of the Act, 1881].

The relevant provision reads thus:

“7. "Drawer".-- The maker of a bill of exchange or cheque

is called the drawer; the person thereby directed to pay is

called the drawee.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 30 of 60

"Drawee in case of need". -- When in the Bill or in any

indorsement thereon the name of any person is given in

addition to the drawee to be resorted to in case of need

such person is called a "drawee in case of need".

"Acceptor". -- After the drawee of a bill has signed his

assent upon the bill, or, if there are more parts thereof than

one, upon one of such parts, and delivered the same, or

given notice of such signing to the holder or to some person

on his behalf, he is called the "acceptor".

"Acceptor for honour". -- When a bill of exchange has been

noted or protested for non-acceptance or for better

security,] and any person accepts it supra protest for

honour of the drawer or of any one of the indorsers, such

person is called an "acceptor for honour".

"Payee". -- The person named in the instrument, to whom

or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed

to be paid, is called the "payee".”

(Emphasis supplied)

a. Meaning of the expressions “delivered for collection through an

account” and “presentation for payment otherwise through an account”

42. The expression “delivered for collection through an account” is an integral

part of Section 142(2)(a) and distinguishes it from the provision in Section

142(2)(b) which comes into operation when a cheque is “presented for

payment otherwise through an account”. We find it apposite to clarify that

the expressions “delivered for collection” and “presented for payment”

respectively, are distinct. They operate in separate stages of discharging a

liability by way of a cheque.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 31 of 60

43. The word “delivery” is defined in Section 46 of the Act, 1881 and reads thus:

“46. Delivery.

The making, acceptance or indorsement of a promissory note,

bill of exchange or cheque is completed by delivery, actual or

constructive.

As between parties standing in immediate relation, delivery

to be effectual must be made by the party making, accepting

or indorsing the instrument, or by a person authorised by him

in that behalf.

As between such parties and any holder of the instrument

other than a holder in due course, it may be shown that the

instrument was delivered conditionally or for a special

purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring

absolutely the property therein.

A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable to

bearer is negotiable by the delivery thereof.

A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable to

order is negotiable by the holder by indorsement and delivery

thereof.”

(Emphasis supplied)

44. What is discernible from the aforesaid is that the “making” of a cheque is

complete only upon delivery of the same by the drawer. The act of

“delivery” thus, creates a relationship between the drawer and the payee

Such relationship is what describes the entitlement of the payee to the

amount of money for which the cheque is drawn and enables the payee to

encash the same.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 32 of 60

45. Upon perusal of Section 142(2)(a), we are of the considered opinion that the

terms “delivered” and “for collection through an account” are to be read in

such a manner that the latter describes the nature of delivery. The plain

reading of Section 46 supports this line of argument as the definition

contained therein indicates that the making of the cheque is complete upon

the act of delivery. Therefore, the nature of the cheque becomes crystallized

as an account payee cheque once the drawer delivers it to the payee who

further delivers it to the bank in which he maintains his account. Once the

cheque is delivered by the payee to his bank, the “making” of the cheque is

said to be complete. The inclusion of the expression “for collection through

an account” in Section 142(2)(a) is only to indicate the intention of the

drawer to “make” the cheque in such a manner that it can only result in a

transaction between the bank accounts of the drawer and the payee.

46. Presentment, on the other hand, is the stage that immediately succeeds

“delivery”. The expression “presentment for payment” is defined under

Section 64 of the Act, 1881. It stipulates that a cheque must be presented for

payment to the maker of such cheque (the drawer) or the person to whom

directions are given to pay the amount specified in the cheque (the drawee).

Such presentment must be by or on behalf of the payee. The relevant

provision reads thus:

“64. Presentment for payment.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 33 of 60

(1) Promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques must

be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or

drawee thereof respectively, by or on behalf of the

holder as hereinafter provided. In default of such

presentment, the other parties thereto are not liable

thereon to such holder.

Where authorized by agreement or usage, a presentment

through the post office by means of a registered letter is

sufficient.

Exception.--Where a promissory note is payable on

demand and is not payable at a specified place, no

presentment is necessary in order to charge the maker

thereof.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6, where

an electronic image of a truncated cheque is presented

for payment, the drawee bank is entitled to demand any

further information regarding the truncated cheque

from the bank holding the truncated cheque in case of

any reasonable suspicion about the genuineness of the

apparent tenor of instrument, and if the suspicion is that

of any fraud, forgery, tampering or destruction of the

instrument, it is entitled to further demand the

presentment of the truncated cheque itself for

verification:

Provided that the truncated cheque so demanded by the

drawee bank shall be retained by it, if the payment is

made accordingly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 34 of 60

47. Therefore, presentment creates a relationship between the drawee bank and

the payee (in case of an account bearer cheque) or the payee’s bank (in case

of an account payee cheque).

48. We may with a view to obviate any confusion, clarify at the threshold that

presentment under Section 64 of the Act, 1881 and presenting of cheque by

the payee to his bank are two distinct acts. The presentation of cheque by a

payee to the payee’s bank is included in the concept of “delivery” defined

under Section 46 of the Act, 1881. It is nothing but an extension of delivery

in the case of non-transferable account payee cheques. The jurisdiction in

such cases has been anchored by Section 142(2)(a) at the place where branch

of the bank in which the payee maintains an account is situated. The sketch

below explains the concepts of “delivery” and “presentment”:

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 35 of 60

b. Meaning of the expression “maintains an account” under Section 142(2)

49. Having discussed the bifurcation created by the legislature for the purposes

of determining jurisdiction as regards any dispute pertaining to account

payee cheques and account bearer cheques respectively, we may now

explain the meaning of the expression “the branch of the bank where the

payee or holder in due course, as the case maybe, maintains the account”.

50. This Court in Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna, reported in 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3833, had the occasion to provide an exhaustive explanation for

the expression “maintains an account” as it appears in Section 138 of the

Act, 1881. The issue therein was whether it was permissible for a third party

to draw a cheque on the bank account of the company of which he was a

director, to discharge his individual liability. This Court observed that the

expression “on an account maintained by him with a banker” describes an

intrinsic relationship between an account holder and the bank in which he

holds such account. Such relationship could not be altered by a delegation

of authority. Therefore, even though a person may draw a cheque on the

bank account of another person, it is not possible to hold such a person who

draws the cheque, liable for the offence under Section 138 as he is not the

one who maintains the account with the bank. The relevant portion of the

judgment in Bijoy Kumar Moni (supra) is reproduced below:

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 36 of 60

“45. It is of vital importance to understand the import of the

expression “on an account maintained by him with a banker”

used in Section 138 of the NI Act. The expression, in our

considered opinion, describes the relationship between the

account holder and the banker. This relationship is

fundamental to the application of Section 138. The act of

maintaining an account is exclusively tied to the account

holder and does not extend to any third party whom the

account holder may authorize to manage the account on its

behalf. Therefore, any delegation of authority to manage the

account does not alter the intrinsic relationship existing

between the account holder and the banker as envisaged

under the NI Act. Corporate persons like companies, which

are mere legal entities and have no soul, mind or limb to work

physically, discharge their functions through some human

agency recognised under the law to work. Therefore, if some

function is discharged by such human agency for and on

behalf of the company it would be an act of the company and

not attributable to such human agent. One such instance of

discharge of functions could be the authority to manage the

bank accounts of the company, issue and sign cheques on its

behalf, etc. which may be delegated to an authorised

signatory. However, such authorisation would not render the

authorised signatory as the maker of those cheques. It is the

company alone which would continue to be the maker of these

cheques, and thus also the drawer within the meaning of

Section 7 of the NI Act.

(Emphasis supplied)

51. It is abundantly clear from the aforesaid exposition that when a person

maintains an account with a bank, he establishes a relationship with such

bank for the management of his money. The scheme of the Act, 1881 leaves

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 37 of 60

no manner of doubt in our minds that such relationship forms the

substructure of all transactions in respect of the account so maintained.

52. Having clarified the meaning of the expression “maintains an account”, we

may proceed to determine the precise details of the relationship between a

person and the bank in which he maintains an account. A bare perusal of

Section 138 indicates that for an offence to be made out thereunder, a person

must draw a cheque on an account maintained by him with a bank. There is

no further stipulation as regards the nature of such account or requirement

of any other details of the bank that may be relevant for the purpose of

adjudication. Therefore, what Section 138 describes by use of the expression

“on an account maintained by him with a banker” is a simpliciter

relationship between a person and his banker.

53. Sub-section (2) of Section 142 adopts a similar language, to indicate the

same relationship as described in Section 138. However, it does so with a

slight modification. The expressions “the branch of the bank where the

payee or holder in due course, as the case maybe, maintains the account”

or alternatively “the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains

the account” include the word “branch”. This indicates that the payee or

drawer, by maintaining the account in a particular branch of the bank, share

a relationship not with the bank as a whole but with the specific branch

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 38 of 60

thereof (we may refer to this specific branch as the “home branch” for ease

of exposition). Therefore, the inclusion of “branch” in Sections 142(2)(a)

and (b) places an additional condition for determining the place where the

payee or drawer maintains the account. This additional condition is placed

on the relationship between a person and his banker, in order to decide the

question of jurisdiction and streamline the process of adjudication. In other

words, for deciding jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a

person maintains an account in a particular bank. It is necessary to also

ascertain the specific branch of the bank in which he maintains the account

to completely and unambiguously decide the said question.

c. Conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto

54. It is limpid from the aforesaid discussion that the necessary corollary of

including ‘branch’ as a factor that shapes the relationship between the

payee/drawer and their bank, is that a complaint under Section 138 would

be triable only by the court in whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank

where the payee/drawer maintain their account, is situated.

55. Before we explain the Section 142(2)(a), we deem it fit to briefly discuss

Section 142(2)(b). In the case of account bearer cheques governed by

Section 142(2)(b), the provision of jurisdiction by way of the Amendment

Act, 2015 is partially reinforced by the position of law expounded in

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 39 of 60

Dashrath Rupsingh (supra). Section 142(2)(b) confers jurisdiction on the

court within whose local area the drawee bank is situated and upon

presentation, the cheque comes to be dishonoured. It is, however, worth

noting that since the introduction of ‘payable at par’ cheques, the

encashment of cheques can happen at any branch of the drawee bank. It is

not necessary that the branch which is honouring or dishonouring the cheque

may be that particular branch in which the drawer maintains the account.

Therefore, the technological advancements in the banking sector have made

it so that the offence of dishonour of cheque can be committed at any branch

of the drawee bank. In such a case, if the law as explained in Dashrath

Rupsingh (supra) is applied strictly then the jurisdiction would be fixed at

the branch of the drawee bank where the cheque was actually dishonoured.

Such branch may not necessarily be the branch in which the drawer

maintains an account. Having taken into account this possibility, we

recognize that the Amendment Act, 2015 has worded Section 142(2)(b) in

such a manner that even if a cheque is dishonoured elsewhere, the

jurisdiction for trial of the complaint under Section 138 would lie with the

court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the drawee bank in which

the drawer maintains the account, is situated.

56. The legislature has adopted a similar route under Section 142(2)(a) to

determine jurisdiction in cases pertaining to the dishonour of account payee

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 40 of 60

cheques. The distinction between Section 142(2)(a) and (b) respectively is

not only limited to the nature of the cheque sought to be encashed but also

the stage at which jurisdictional ambiguity may arise, i.e., at the stage of

delivery or presentment in the case of account payee cheque and account

bearer cheque respectively. In the case of an account payee cheque, the

jurisdictional uncertainty may arise in the first stage of delivery itself. As

discussed in the aforesaid, “delivery” is continued by the payee to also

include delivery of the cheque to the payee’s bank. In such a case, the act of

making of the cheque is influenced by the payee allowing him to deliver the

cheque for collection at any branch of the bank in which he maintains an

account.

57. If the aforesaid be so and the jurisdiction is to be decided on the basis of the

place where the cheque was delivered to the bank of the payee, the same

would lead to conferring unbridled power to the payee in deciding

jurisdiction which may be misused for the purposes of forum shopping. We

are cognizant of the fact that the dictum in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra)

sought to minimize such abuse of law that arose from the wide ambit of

jurisdiction specified in Bhaskaran (supra). While a bare perusal of the

amended Section 142 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Amendment Act, 2015 shows that the Parliament has made a departure from

the offence-centric understanding of jurisdiction in Dashrath Rupsingh

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 41 of 60

(supra), yet we find it difficult to accept that the legislature would relegate

the position of law back to a situation that would facilitate its manipulation.

58. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a).

A bare textual reading of the provision indicates that the Explanation creates

a legal fiction that a cheque, when delivered for collection through an

account, at ‘any branch’ of the bank in which the payee maintains the

account, would be deemed to have been delivered to the particular branch of

the bank in which the payee maintains his account, i.e., the home branch of

the payee. Therefore, by way of Explanation, the legislature ensures

convenience of transaction by recognizing that a payee may deliver a cheque

at ‘any branch’ of his bank. However, in a situation where such cheque

comes to be dishonoured, it would be deemed that the cheque was delivered

at the home branch so as to empower the court, within whose local territorial

jurisdiction the said branch falls, to try the complaint in this regard.

59. We may advert to the following illustrative table to lend further clarity to

the aforesaid exposition:

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 42 of 60

Payee’s Home Branch: DELHI Drawer’s Home Branch: MUMBAI

Drawer issues the cheque in Ahmedabad.

SECTION 142(2)(a) SECTION 142(2)(b)

In case of an account payee cheque

(governed by Section 142(2)(a)),

Payee delivers the cheque for

collection in branch of the payee’s

bank situated in CHENNAI.

In case of an account bearer cheque

(governed by Section 142(2)(b)),

Payee presents the cheque in branch

of the drawee bank situated at

BANGALORE.

Jurisdiction in case of account

payee cheque, under Section

142(2)(a) is vested with the courts

at DELHI.

Jurisdiction in case of account

bearer cheque, under Section

142(2)(b) is vested with the courts

at MUMBAI.

Reason:

The legal fiction created in the

Explanation to Section 142(2)(a)

stipulates that jurisdiction would lie

at the Home Branch of the Payee

(DELHI) irrespective of where the

cheque has been delivered by the

Payee (in this case at Chennai).

Reason:

The plain language of Section

142(2)(b) indicates that jurisdiction

in cases of account bearer cheques

would lie at the Home Branch of the

Drawer (MUMBAI) irrespective of

where the cheque has been

presented by the Payee (in this case,

at Bangalore).

60. This Court had the occasion to apply the principles of jurisdiction laid down

in Section 142(2)(a) for the first time in Bridgestone India (P) Ltd. v.

Inderpal Singh, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 75 wherein it was observed that

the legal position declared in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) has been

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 43 of 60

overturned by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance,

2015 whereby Section 142 was amended such that the jurisdiction would be

fixed at the place where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., the branch

of the bank in which the payee maintains an account. The relevant portions

of the judgment in Bridgestone (supra) are reproduced below:

“11. In order to overcome the legal position declared by this

Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod case [Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129

: (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 676 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 673] , the

learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to

the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance,

2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”). A perusal

of Section 1(2) thereof reveals that the Ordinance would be

deemed to have come into force with effect from 15-6-2015.

It is, therefore, pointed out to us that the Negotiable

Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 is in

force. Our attention was then invited to Section 3 thereof,

whereby, the original Section 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, came to be amended, and also, Section

4 thereof, whereby, Section 142-A was inserted into the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

---xxx---

13. A perusal of the amended Section 142(2), extracted

above, leaves no room for any doubt, specially in view of the

Explanation thereunder, that with reference to an offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,

the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the

branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course,

where the drawee maintains an account, would be

determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis supplied)

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 44 of 60

61. We are of the considered view that the paraphrasing of Section 142(2)(a) as

done in Bridgestone (supra) bears some relevance and requires explanation.

This Court applied the provision as intended by the language of Section

142(2)(a), however, in the process of exposition, rephrased the same and the

Explanation thereto in a manner that gives primacy to the expression “for

collection” without indicating the complete context in which it occurs in the

provision. A perusal of Section 142(2)(a) reflects that the expression “for

collection through an account” is employed by the legislature to identify the

nature of the cheque as an account payee cheque. Therefore, the use of the

phrase “delivered for collection” with incomplete context in Bridgestone

(supra) gave rise to a cleavage of opinion. This is evident from this Court’s

decision in Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., reported in (2023) 19 SCC

404.

62. In Yogesh Upadhyay (supra), the petitioner therein had prayed for transfer

of the two complaints filed in Nagpur to Delhi, as the complaint in respect

of other four cheques, between the same parties, were registered before the

competent court in Delhi. This Court, on a conjoint reading of the Statement

of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act, 2015 and Para 13 of

Bridgestone (supra) respectively, held that the jurisdiction to try an offence

under Section 138 will lie with a court within whose local jurisdiction the

cheque has been delivered for collection i.e., through an account in the

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 45 of 60

branch of the bank where the payee maintains an account. The relevant

paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:

“12. Perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in

Amendment Act 26 of 2015 makes it amply clear that

insertion of Sections 142(2) and 142-A in the 1881 Act was a

direct consequence of the judgment of this Court in Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod [Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of

Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 676 :

(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 673] . Therefore, the use of the

phrase:“shall be inquired into and tried only by a court

within whose local jurisdiction …” in Section 142(2) of the

1881 Act is contextual to the ratio laid down in Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod [Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of

Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 676 :

(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 673] to the contrary, whereby territorial

jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the 1881

Act vested in the court having jurisdiction over the drawee

bank and not the complainant's bank where he had presented

the cheque. Section 142(2) now makes it clear that the

jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the court

within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the

cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of

the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly

inserted Section 142-A further clarifies this position by

validating the transfer of pending cases to the courts

conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment.

13. The later decision of this Court in Bridgestone India (P)

Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh [Bridgestone India (P)

Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ)

588 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 472] affirmed the legal position

obtaining after the amendment of the 1881 Act and endorsed

that Section 142(2)(a) of the 1881 Act vests jurisdiction for

initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the

court where the cheque is delivered for collection i.e. through

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 46 of 60

an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or

holder in due course maintains an account. This Court also

affirmed that Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod [Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129

: (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 676 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 673] would

not non-suit the company insofar as territorial jurisdiction

for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act

was concerned.”

(Emphasis supplied)

63. We also find it apposite to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of

the Amendment Act, 2015. The same reads thus:

“Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015

Prefatory Note—Statement of Objects and Reasons.—

(…) 3. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 1st August,

2014, in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of

Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, held that the territorial

jurisdiction for dishonour of cheques is restricted to the court

within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed,

which in the present context is where the cheque is

dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn. The Supreme

Court has directed 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. All other complaints

(including those where the accused/respondent has not been

properly served) shall be returned to the complainant for

filing in the proper court, in consonance with exposition of

the law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

4. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court,

representations have been made to the Government by

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 47 of 60

various stakeholders, including industry associations and

financial institutions, expressing concerns about the wide

impact this judgment would have on the business interests as

it will offer undue protection to defaulters at the expense of

the aggrieved complainant; will give a complete go-by to the

practice/concept of ‘Payable at Par cheques’ and would

ignore the current realities of cheque clearing with the

introduction of CTS (Cheque Truncation System) where

cheque clearance happens only through scanned image in

electronic form and cheques are not physically required to be

presented to the issuing branch (drawee bank branch) but are

settled between the service branches of the drawee and payee

banks; will give rise to multiplicity of cases covering several

cheques drawn on bank(s) at different places; and adhering

to it is impracticable for a single window agency with

customers spread all over India.

5. To address the difficulties faced by the payee or the lender

of the money in filing the case under Section 138 of the said

Act, because of which, large number of cases are stuck, the

jurisdiction for offence under Section 138 has been clearly

defined. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015

provides for the following, namely—

(i) filing of cases only by a court within whose local

jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee

presents the cheque for payment, is situated;

(ii) stipulating that where a complaint has been filed against

the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under

the new scheme of jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints

arising out of Section 138 of the said Act against the same

drawer shall be filed before the same court, irrespective of

whether those cheques were presented for payment within the

territorial jurisdiction of that court;

(iii) stipulating that if more than one prosecution is filed

against the same drawer of cheques before different courts,

upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 48 of 60

court, the court shall transfer the case to the court having

jurisdiction as per the new scheme of jurisdiction; and

(iv) amending Explanation I under Section 6 of the said Act

relating to the meaning of expression “a cheque in the

electronic form”, as the said meaning is found to be deficient

because it presumes drawing of a physical cheque, which is

not the objective in preparing “a cheque in the electronic

form” and inserting a new Explanation III in the said section

giving reference of the expressions contained in the

Information Technology Act, 2000. (…)”

(Emphasis supplied)

64. What has been conveyed by this Court in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) is that

the account which the payee maintains in a particular branch of the bank,

serves only as a conduit for the payee to deliver the cheque at any branch of

the bank, for subsequent presentment to the drawee bank. In other words,

the payee is only required to maintain an account in a branch of the bank,

for the said bank to present the cheque to the drawee bank from any of its

branches. Therefore, the act of “maintaining an account in a branch” is to

enable the primary action of “delivery for collection”. Accordingly, the

jurisdiction must lie at the place where the primary action was performed,

i.e., the branch of the payee’s bank where the cheque was actually delivered

for collection, is situated.

65. The reasoning adopted in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) may find some support

in the literal reading of Para 5(i) of the aforesaid Statement of Objects and

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 49 of 60

Reasons which states that cases would be filed in the court having

jurisdiction over the branch of the bank in which the payee presents the

cheque for payment. It is apposite to note that, on the face of it, the language

used in the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not synonymous with the

language of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto. Therefore, in our

considered view, Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) could not have derived support

from the Statement of Objects and Reasons.

66. We say so because no value could have been attached to the language

adopted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the purpose of

discerning the true meaning and effect of a substantive provision occurring

in the statute book. This principle of interpretation has been settled by this

Court in Devadoss v. Veera Makali Amman Koil Athalur, reported in

(1998) 9 SCC 286 wherein it was observed thus:

“21. The question arises naturally whether the court can

refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons mentioned in a

bill when it is placed before the legislature and even if it is

permissible, to what extent the court can make use of the

same. On this aspect, the law is well settled. In Narain

Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain [(1985) 1 SCC 1] it was

stated that though the Statement of Objects and Reasons

accompanying a legislative bill could not be used to

determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive

provisions of a statute, it was permissible to refer to the same

for the purpose of understanding the background, the

antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 50 of 60

relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to

remedy.”

(Emphasis supplied)

67. Further, we must also closely scrutinize the reliance placed by Yogesh

Upadhyay (supra) on the phrasing of Section 142(2)(a) in Bridgestone

(supra). We say so because the application of Section 142(2)(a) in

Bridgestone (supra), in no manner, supports how the provision was applied

in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra). Though the judgment in Yogesh Upadhyay

(supra) does not mention where the branch of the bank was situated in which

the payee maintained an account, was situated, yet it is discernible from the

decision that this Court gave primacy to the place where the cheque was

“delivered for collection” when it upheld the correctness of institution of

complaints in Nagpur.

68. In our considered view, the interpretation of jurisdiction under Section

142(2)(a) in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) is not borne out of the statutory

scheme of the Act, 1881. A perusal of the judgment shows that it did not

take into account the deeming fiction put forth in the Explanation to Section

142(2)(a) that delivery of a cheque at any branch of the payee’s bank will be

deemed to have been delivered at the branch of the bank in which the payee

maintains the account, i.e., the home branch of the payee. Even though, this

Court in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) does not go so far as to discuss the

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 51 of 60

meaning and import of the Explanation, yet we may attempt to harmoniously

read the language of the Explanation with the reasons provided in the said

judgment in the interests of gauging the correct position of law.

69. Therefore, in arguendo, we may look at the Explanation from one another

angle. The language used in the Explanation may also create a legal fiction

that would enable ‘any branch’ of the payee’s bank to be deemed as ‘the

branch in which the payee maintains an account’ (the “home branch”). This

construction of the Explanation would mean that by virtue of Section

142(2)(a), the court within whose local jurisdiction the home branch is

situated, has an inherent power to try a complaint under Section 138 filed by

the payee. However, the payee delivered the cheque for collection at another

branch instead of the home branch. According to the dictum as laid in

Yogesh Upadhyay (supra), primacy has to be accorded to the action of the

payee in “delivery of the cheque for collection” for the purpose of

determining jurisdiction. The only understanding that we can obtain from

the aforesaid is that the court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the home

branch will have to share the inherent powers that it possesses under Section

142(2)(a), with the court in whose jurisdiction such other branch is situated,

in which the payee delivered the cheque for collection.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 52 of 60

70. Having undertaken the academic exercise of understanding the ways in

which the Explanation may be read, we do not have any qualms in saying

that the aforesaid construction of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation

thereto does not appeal to us. We say so for the following two reasons:

(i) First, the understanding of the Explanation in such a manner leads to

distorting of the plain language of Section 142(2)(a). This Court, in

Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) observed that “the legislature does not

ordain with one hand and immediately negate it with the other”. We

find the said principle to be of much significance especially while

reading explanations attached to the provisions that seek to clarify the

operation of such provision. In our considered view, an explanation

cannot be raised to such a high pedestal that the provision which it

intends to clarify becomes a mere supporting device.

(ii) Secondly, a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the

Amendment Act, 2015 indicates that the legislature intended to change

the process of determination of jurisdiction for trial of complaints under

Section 138. The inclusion of Section 142(2) in the Act, 1881, which

is a special legislation, meant that the jurisdictional vacuum was filled.

The natural consequence of such amendment was that there remained

no requirement of approaching the issue of jurisdiction from an

ordinary criminal perspective as provided in the CrPC, as was done in

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 53 of 60

Dashrath Rupsingh (supra). However, the Statement of Objects and

Reasons gives no indication that the said judgment made erroneous

observations about the misuse of the wide ambit of jurisdiction by

complainants to the inconvenience of the accused persons. In our

considered view, it could not have been the intention of the Parliament

to let abuse of law go unchecked. It is for this reason that the judgment

in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) does not impress us. If we accept the

construction placed on Section 142(2)(a) by the decision in Yogesh

Upadhyay (supra), we will be allowing a payee to manipulate the

question of jurisdiction in his favour by letting him decide where he

wants to deliver the cheque for collection. We are of the firm opinion

that the legislature could not have intended to let misuse perpetuate in

such a manner.

71. We find it apposite to also look into the decision rendered in Shri Sendhur

Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 508 wherein this Court placed reliance on both Bridgestone

(supra) as well as Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) respectively. The phraseology

employed in Sendhur Agro (supra) suggests that this Court was in

agreement with the law expounded in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) in respect

of “delivery for collection”. However, upon a closer examination, it is clear

that this Court understood the term “delivered” and “for collection through

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 54 of 60

an account” in a disjunct manner which is not in consonance with how

Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) perceived Section 142(2)(a). It was observed that

presentation of a cheque to the drawee bank will be “through the account”

of the payee and that such place would be determinative for the purpose of

identifying jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sendhur

Agro (supra) is reproduced below:

“61. It is clear on a reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the

Explanation thereto that, for the purposes of clause (a),

where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of

the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the

cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch

of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the

case may be, maintains the account.

62. A conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) along with the

explanation thereof, makes the position emphatically clear

that, when a cheque is delivered or issued to a person with

liberty to present the cheque for collection at any branch of

the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case

may be, maintains the account then, the cheque shall be

deemed to have been delivered or issued to the branch of the

bank, in which, the payee or holder in due course, as the case

may be, maintains the account, and the court of the place

where such cheque was presented for collection, will have the

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging the

commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act. In that view of the position of law, the word

‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act has no

significance. What is of significance is the expression ‘for

collection through an account’. That is to say, delivery of the

cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and

presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 55 of 60

payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive

to determine the question of jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis supplied)

72. What is discernible from the aforesaid exposition is that this Court

considered the requirement of “maintaining of the account” implicit in “for

collection through an account”. In other words, once it is identified that the

cheque in question is an account payee cheque, the delivery must be to such

branch in which the payee maintains the account as it is this branch of the

bank that will receive the funds in the account maintained by the payee, from

the drawee bank which will debit the drawer’s account to send such amount.

However, the necessity of delivery of an account payee cheque to the home

branch is only legal and not commercial. It is to address commercial

exigencies that the legislature enacted the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a).

The deeming fiction in the Explanation ensures that even if a cheque is

delivered to a branch other than the home branch for commercial

convenience, it shall be considered to have been delivered to the home

branch for the legal purpose of determining jurisdiction. This understanding

is also apparent from this Court’s recent judgment in Prakash Chimanlal

Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1511.

73. The aforesaid comparison may be better illustrated through the following

diagram depicted hereunder:

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 56 of 60

Section 142(2)(a) –

(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by

a court within whose local jurisdiction,--

(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch

of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be,

maintains the account, is situated

Bridgestone (supra) – Yogesh Upadhyay

(supra) –

Sendhur Agro (supra)

–

Section 142(2)(a) of

the 1881 Act vests

jurisdiction for

initiating proceedings

for an offence under

Section 138 in the

court where the cheque

is delivered

for collection i.e.

through an account in

the branch of the bank

where the payee or

holder in due course

maintains an account

Section 142(2) now

makes it clear that the

jurisdiction to try such

an offence would vest

only in the court within

whose jurisdiction the

branch of the Bank

where the cheque was

delivered for collection

, through the account

of the payee or holder

in due course, is

situated

In that view of the

position of law, the

word ‘delivered’ used

in Section 142(2)(a) of

the N.I. Act has no

significance. What is of

significance is

the expression

‘for collection

through an account’.

That is to say, delivery

of the cheque takes

place where the cheque

was issued and

presentation of the

cheque will be

through the account of

the payee or holder in

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 57 of 60

due course, and the

said place is decisive to

determine the question

of jurisdiction.

74. The above diagrammatic representation shows that each judgment has

considered specific phrases together or disjunct from each other due to

which there have been variations in understanding of the provision in

Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto.

75. In such view of the matter, we are constrained to observe that the position

of law expounded in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra) is per incuriam.

(iii) Determination of the issues framed

a. Whether the MM, Kolkata has the jurisdiction to try the

complaint?

76. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is as clear as a noon day that the

jurisdiction to try a complaint filed under Section 138 in respect of a cheque

delivered for collection through an account, i.e., an account payee cheque,

is vested in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank

in which the payee maintains the account, i.e., the payee’s home branch, is

situated. Therefore, we find no force in the petitioner’s argument that as per

the relevant provisions of the CrPC, the jurisdiction to try the complaint

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 58 of 60

under Section 138 is vested in the court within whose local bounds the

drawee bank is situated where the cheque was dishonoured. We say so

because the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015 and the introduction of

Section 142(2) thereby, being a special legislation, occupies the field over a

general procedural legislation viz. CrPC. Thus, the MM, Kolkata does not

have jurisdiction to try the case.

b. Whether a case of transfer of the complaint from the court of

JMFC, Bhopal to MM, Kolkata is made out?

77. The petitioner, who is the accused company in the complaint instituted by

the respondent-complainant, has prayed for transfer of the complaint on the

ground that the MM, Kolkata, before returning the complaint, had already

reached the stage of recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of the Act,

1881.

78. It is apposite to note that Section 142A of the Act, 1881 provides for transfer

of pending cases under Section 138, to the court having jurisdiction in terms

of Section 142(2). We are aware that the jurisdiction to try the complaint in

the instant case lied exclusively with the JMFC, Bhopal. If the matter had

remained pending at the stage prior to the recording of evidence, there would

have been no difficulty in accepting the deemed transfer of the complaint

under Section 142A(1) to the court of JMFC, Bhopal from the court of MM,

Kolkata. However, much water has floated under the bridge. We were

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 59 of 60

informed that the court of MM, Kolkata returned the complaint when it had

already reached the stage of recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of

the Act, 1881. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion

that allowing the parties to contest the complaint afresh before the JMFC,

Bhopal would amount to a procedural impropriety that may prove to be

detrimental to the case of the accused.

79. In Dashrath Rupsingh (supra), this Court, with a view to obviate and

eradicate legal complications, had allowed the category of complaint cases

in which proceedings had reached the stage of recording evidence under

Section 145(2), to remain in the court where they were pending, despite such

courts not being vested with jurisdiction in terms of the judgment. The

relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

“22. (…) To obviate and eradicate any legal complications,

the category of complaint cases where proceedings have

gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed

to have been transferred by us from the court ordinarily

possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the

court where it is presently pending.”

80. In light of the observations in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) and to meet the

ends of justice, we are of the view that the instant case be transferred to the

jurisdiction of MM, Kolkata and the proceedings be resumed from the stage

before the order of return of complaint dated 28.07.2016.

T.P. (Crl.) D. No. 24362 of 2025 Page 60 of 60

D. CONCLUSION

81. Having regard to the pleadings in the memorandum of the transfer petition,

we have reached the conclusion that a case has been made out for transfer

of the proceedings in question.

82. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. All other

connected transfer petitions are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

83. The Registry shall forward one copy each of this judgment to all the High

Courts.

84. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

…………………………………J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

………………………………… .J.

(R. MAHADEVAN)

New Delhi.

28

th

November, 2025.