The Supreme Court has held that only a court in whose jurisdiction an offence of cheque bounce was committed could try the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court set the guideline as it found that there were numerous instances where complaints were being filed at more than one place to harass the drawer of the cheque.
“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,” the judgment said in the dispute between Harman Electronics and National Panasonic India.
[Source: The Business Standard]
The comment is misleading. The court did NOT set any guideline. Theses observations were only “obiter dicta” keeping in view the facts of that particular case. At the end only DIRECTIONS were issued by SC under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the case as follows “We, however, while exercising our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that
Complaint Case No.1549 pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Kaushik,
Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, be transferred to the Court of the
District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh who shall assign the same to a
court of competent jurisdiction.”
{M/S. HARMAN ELECTRONICS (P) LTD Vs M/S. NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA LTD.
CITATION: 2008(16) SCALE 317; Decided on: December 12, 2008}