$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 784/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 18th October, 2011
HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. R.K. Sonkhiya, Adv.
versus
VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S.K. Jain, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No.
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Admittedly in the present case, the cheque(s) in
question were presented for encashment at Delhi and the
legal demand notice under Section 138 Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 has been issued from Delhi.
2. Vide a judgment delivered by this court on 09.09.2011
in Crl. Rev. P. 170/2010, ‘GE Capital Transportation Financial
Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan,’ view has been taken on
CRL M.C. 784/2011 Page 1 of 3
the jurisdiction keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. S.B.
Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, whereby 5 ingredients were
decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as under:-
“The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only
with the concatenation of a number of acts.
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 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.
“—-If the five different acts were done in different
localities any one of the courts exercising
jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can
become place of trial for offence u/s 138 NI Act.”
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid
judgment passed by this court, has been subjected to
challenge in Special Leave Petition (C) No.29044/2011
‘Vinay Kumar Shailendra Vs. Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee & Anr.’ and the Apex court vide
order dated 03.11.2009, while referring the matter to a
CRL M.C. 784/2011 Page 2 of 3
larger bench, had directed „Status quo, as on today, shall be
maintained until further orders‟.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid Judgment dated
09.09.2011 passed by this Court, the present Petition is
dismissed.
5. In view of the main Petition having been disposed of,
Crl. M.A. No.2988/2011 becomes infructuous and dismissed
as infructuous.
6. No orders as to cost.
SURESH KAIT, J
October 18, 2011
RS
CRL M.C. 784/2011 Page 3 of 3