Landmark Judgment in NI Act for Jurisdiction of a Complaint Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, Oct 01, 2019, at ,03:12 PM Title of the Case – Jurisdiction of a Complaint in Cheque Bounce Name of the case – Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Crl.A. No. 2287 of 2009 (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – 01st Aug 2014 Judges: Justice T S Thakur, Justice Vikramajit Sen, Justice C. Nagappan Subject and sections involved – Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Issue: Whether the case has to be initiated at the place where the branch of the bank on which the cheque was drawn is located? Fact of the Case: The case raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance pertaining to Court’s territorial jurisdiction concerning criminal complaints filed under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This is amply adumbrated by the Orders of the three-Judge Bench presided over by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam which SLP is also concerned with the interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act, and wherein the Bench after issuing notice on the petition directed that it be posted before the three-Judge Bench. Click Here to Get All Important Judgment of the Month Ratio of the Case: The Supreme Court held that u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is to prosecute a person who had presented the cheque which had been returned due to insufficiency of funds or if the amount exceeds the amount in the bank of the payer. Earlier, a case under Section 138 could be initiated by the holder of the cheque at his place of business or residence. But, a bench of justices TS Thakur, Vikramjit Sen and C Nagappan ruled that the case has to be initiated at the place where the branch of the bank on which the cheque was drawn is located. And the judgment would apply retrospectively. This means, lakhs of cases pending in various courts across the country would witness a interstate transfer of cheque bouncing cases. The bench said: “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.”