ORDER
G. Sasidharan, J.
1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. 540 of 2001 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Thiruvalla. The allegation against the petitioner is
that he committed the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The statement in
the complaint is that the petitioner obtained a loan of
3.8 lakh dirhams for conducting the business of provision
store and canteen. Petitioner issued a cheque for 16,000
dirhams on 1-1-2001 towards part payment of the amount
borrowed from the second respondent. The cheque was
drawn on M/s. Abudabi Commercial Bank, Industrial Area
Branch, Sharjah and the second respondent presented the
cheque in M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvalla Branch on
22-1-2001. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason
that there was no sufficient amount in the account for
making payment of the amount covered by the cheque.
Second respondent got intimation regarding the dishonour
of the cheque on 7-2-2001 and notice was sent to the
petitioner informing the dishonour of the cheque. The
complaint alleging commission of the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was
filed alleging that in spite of issuance of notice the
petitioner did not pay the amount covered by the cheque.
2. According to the petitioner, in
connection with a chitty transaction he had to give a
signed blank cheque as security along with the other
documents. One of the contentions raised by the
petitioner is that the cheque was drawn on a bank in
Sharjah and the transaction was also in Sharjah. It is
stated that no part of the transaction took place within
India and no complaint can be filed under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is also contention
that even if the allegations in the complaint are true,
the alleged transaction is in clear violation of the
provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
3. The cheque in question was drawn on
M/s. Abudabi Commercial Bank, Industrial Area Branch,
Sharjah. The second respondent presented the cheque in
M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvalla Branch on 22-1-2001.
Then the second respondent got intimation that the cheque
was dishonoured for the reason that there was no
sufficient amount in the account of the petitioner. The
petitioner would contend that the cheque was issued in
Sharjah drawn on a bank in Sharjah and the entire
transaction was in Sharjah and hence it cannot be said
that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act was committed. There is no
merit in the above contention raised by the petitioner in
the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Bhaskaran v. Balan (1999 [3] KLT 440 [SC] in which it
was held that drawing of cheque, presentation of the
cheque to the bank, returning the cheque unpaid by the
drawee bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of
the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and
failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of
receipt of notice are the components of the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that if
the five different acts were done in fie different
localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction
in one of the five local areas can become the place of
trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
Since the presentation of the cheque for encashment was
at a place within the jurisdiction of a court in which
complaint is filed the complaint alleging commission of
the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be
maintained in that Court.
4. A decision on the contention raised by
the petitioner that he was forced to give signed blank
cheque to the second respondent in connection with a
chitty transaction along with other documents and that
was given towards security, can be taken only after
taking evidence. A final decision on that question
cannot be taken in a proceedings under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. In respect of the contention
raised that the money transaction is in violation of the
provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
what has to be said is that even if there is violation of
the provisions of that Act the parties to the money
transactions have to face the consequences mentioned in
that Act for the violation and that has nothing to do
with the allegation that the petitioner committed the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act. This is a case in which the cheque was presented in
a bank in India for collection of the amount and when
that cheque was sent for encashment that was returned
with the endorsement that there was no sufficient amount
in the account to honour the cheque.
There are no grounds for quashing the proceedings
in the case and this petition is hence dismissed.