Cheque Bounce Case - Territorial Jurisdiction - Statement/Affidavit /Evidence Recorded before taking Cognizance of the case - whether such a sworn statement can be treated as commencement of recording of evidence to retain the case in that Court or not. Going by the above ruling of Apex Court, the said sworn statement though admitted to be evidence, cannot be treated as commencement of the evidence to retain the case in that Court. Any evidence led by the complainant in the form of affidavit or oral statement during pre-summoning i.e. pre-cognizance stage cannot be treated as commencement of recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of N.I.Act to retain the case in that Court. So, also the sworn statement given by complainant at pre-cognizance stage admitted as evidence during trial cannot be construed as commencement of recording of evidence under Section 145(2) N.I.Act to retain the case in the same court. not amounts to commencement of Evidence - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



the form of affidavit or oral statement during pre-summoning i.e.
pre-cognizance stage cannot be treated as commencement of recording of
evidence under Section 145(2) of N.I.Act to retain the case in that Court.
So, also the sworn statement given by complainant at pre-cognizance stage
admitted as evidence during trial cannot be construed as commencement of
recording of evidence under Section 145(2) N.I.Act to retain the case in the
same court.

when the complainant presented the said cheque in Andhra
Bank, Anantapur Branch on 19.07.2012, the same was bounced with the  
endorsement as Account Closed and thereby the statutory notice followed
to the accused but in vain.  Hence, the complaint under Sec.138 of N.I. Act
and also under Sec.420 IPC.
 The petitioner/accused seeks quashment of the proceedings on the
main plank of argument that the cheque was drawn at Hyderabad and the
same was dishonoured there itself and no part of cause of action has arisen
at Anantapur and therefore, the criminal case is not maintainable in the
Court at Anantapur since the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile
Court) has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case in view of
the ruling given by Honble Apex Court in its latest judgment reported in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another .
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.
To
clarify, regardless of whether evidence has been led before the
Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, either by affidavit or by oral
statement, the complaint will be maintainable only at the  place
where the cheque stands dishonoured. 
The admitted facts in this case are that the subject cheque
was drawn on Citi Bank, Hyderabad and the complainant presented the said
cheque for collection through Andhra Bank, Georgepet Branch, Anantapur
and later the cheque was bounced on the ground account closed

 Sometimes the complainant
submits a vivid sworn statement basing on which the Court takes cognizance
of the complaint. After appearance of the accused when the matter comes up
for trial, the complainant may request the Court to treat his previous sworn
statement as evidence on his behalf as the said statement is vivid enough
containing full particulars and the Court may also accepts the same. Now the
point is whether such a sworn statement can be treated as commencement of  
recording of evidence to retain the case in that Court or not. Going by the
above ruling of Apex Court, the said sworn statement though admitted to be
evidence, cannot be treated as commencement of the evidence to retain the
case in that Court.
Any evidence led by the complainant in
the form of affidavit or oral statement during pre-summoning i.e.
pre-cognizance stage cannot be treated as commencement of recording of  
evidence under Section 145(2) of N.I.Act to retain the case in that Court.
So, also the sworn statement given by complainant at pre-cognizance stage
admitted as evidence during trial cannot be construed as commencement of 
recording of evidence under Section 145(2) N.I.Act to retain the case in the
same court. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more