Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act 2015 comes in to force with retrospective effect [Read the Text]

Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act 2015 comes in to force with retrospective effect [Read the Text]

The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2015 came in to force with retrospective effect. According to the notification published in the official Gazette dated 26.12.2015 the Amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on the 15th day of June, 2015. Rajya Sabha passed the Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill 2015 on 7th December 2015 . Lok Sabha had passed the Bill in August 2015. The Act will replace Negotiable Instrument (Amendment)  ordinance which was re-promulgated on 25th September 2015. The amendment makes changes in provisions relating to the territorial jurisdiction for filing Cheque dishonour Cases in the Negotiable Instrument Act.

As per the Amendment

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.

It was in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra  a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that  a Complaint of Dis-honour of Cheque can be filed only  to  the  Court  within  whose  local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which  in  the  present  context  is where the cheque is dishonored by the bank on which it is drawn. The Court clarified that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc. of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. overruled the two Judge Bench Judgment in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan  Balan  (1999) 7 SCC 510 wherein it was held that “the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts.

Read the full text here.