# Jagdish Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1273 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-19 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44181 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 145(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 177, 178, 179, 182 and 184 - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint under S. 138 - Cheque dishonoured by drawee bank situated outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate - Complaint maintainable only before Court within whose territorial jurisdiction cheque was dishonoured - Proceedings not having reached stage contemplated under S. 145(2), complaint liable to be returned for presentation before competent Court - Complaint re-presented within thirty days of return to be treated as within limitation, provided original complaint was not time-barred - Revision arising from summoning order passed by ACJM. Following Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, held, the Court at Sonebhadra lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheque had been dishonoured by the drawee bank at Mirzapur. Since the case had not reached the stage of recording evidence under S. 145(2) of the Act, the complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the competent Court, with protection regarding limitation in terms of the decision in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod. In Result :- Criminal revision disposed of. Interim order, if any, vacated. ## Text 8 All. Jagdish Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1273 (2016) 8 ILRA 1273 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3491 Of 2014 Jagdish ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist: Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Surendra Tiwari Cases Cited Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, U.P. Criminal Rulings, Vol. XLV, 2014 (2), 630. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 145(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 177, 178, 179, 182 and 184 - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint under S. 138 - Cheque dishonoured by drawee bank situated outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate - Complaint maintainable only before Court within whose territorial jurisdiction cheque was dishonoured - Proceedings not having reached stage contemplated under S. 145(2), complaint liable to be returned for presentation before competent Court - Complaint re-presented within thirty days of return to be treated as within limitation, provided original complaint was not time-barred - Revision arising from summoning order passed by ACJM. Following Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, held, the Court at Sonebhadra lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheque had been dishonoured by the drawee bank at Mirzapur. Since the case had not reached the stage of recording evidence under S. 145(2) of the Act, the complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the competent Court, with protection regarding limitation in terms of the decision in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod. In Result :- Criminal revision disposed of. Interim order, if any, vacated. (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra in Case No.1038 of 2014 (Anand Sagar v. Jagdish) by which the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionist, Jagdish under Section 1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed the complainant, opposite party no.2, Anand Sagar to take steps within 10 days under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts in narrow compass are narrated as follows:- 4. Revisionist, is a registered contractor in the name and style of M/s J.K. Construction Company, Tilaulikalan, Police Station and Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. As per the complaint, a cheque bearing no.043055 was issued on 4.4.2014 in favour of opposite party no.2, Anand Sagar which was dishonoured by the drawee bank i.e. Bank of India, Mirzapur Branch, Wellesley Ganj, District Mirzapur. 5. Since, the blank cheque was missing, information in this regard was furnished by the revisionist to the bank on 4.4.2014 and thereafter, the concerned bank stopped the payment of the cheque. However, the concerned cheque was presented by the opposite party no.2 on 11.4.2014 before the concerned bank and the same was returned with remark "Payment stopped by the drawer". 6. The court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra did not have territorial jurisdiction to summon the revisionist, Jagdish in view of Sections 177, 178, 179, 220 (1), 182 and 184 Cr.P.C. 7. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for both the parties on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another [U.P. Criminal Rulings, Vol. XLV 2014 (2), 630]. Para-20 of the judgement is quoted as below:- "20. We are quite alive to the magnitude of the impact that the present decision shall have to possibly lakhs of cases pending in various Courts spanning across the country. One approach could be to declare that this judgment will have only prospective pertinence, i.e. applicability to complaints that may be filed after this pronouncement. However, keeping in perspective the hardship that this will continue to bear on alleged accused/respondents who may have to travel long distances in conducting their defence, and also mindful of the legal implications of proceedings being permitted to continue in a Court devoid of jurisdiction, this recourse in entirety does not commend itself to us. Consequent on considerable consideration we think it expedient to direct that only those cases 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. To obviate and eradicate any legal complications, the category of Complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred by us from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as now clarified, to the Court where it is presently pending. All other Complaints (obviously including those where the accused/respondent has not been properly served) shall be returned to the Complainant for filing 8 All. Jagdish Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1275 in the proper Court, in consonance with our exposition of the law. If such Complaints are filed/refiled within thirty days of their return, they shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time barred." 8. Having considered the facts mentioned as above and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod (supra), the complaint being Case No.1038 of 2014 (Anand Sagar v. Jagdish), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 instituted before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra, Police Station Karma, District Sonebhadra is returned to the complainant Anand Sagar for filing in the proper court (if he wishes to do so) in consonance with the exposition of the law expressed by the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod (supra). If such complaint is filed within thirty days of it's return, it shall be deemed to have been filed within the time prescribed by law, unless the initial or prior filing was itself time barred. 9.The criminal revision is accordingly disposed of. 10. Interim order, if any, is vacated. ---------- 1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1276 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 3598 Of 2011 Satish Verma ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Radhey Shyam, Mukesh Kumar, Suresh Chandra Verma Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304 & 336 - Culpable homicide - Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Reduction of sentence - Accused assaulted deceased with brick during sudden quarrel under influence of liquor - No premeditation or intention to cause death - Single blow inflicted - Held, case falls under S. 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide of third degree) and not under graver category - Conviction altered in terms of sentencing; sentence reduced. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304 Part II - Ingredients - Knowledge vs intention - Where act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intention to cause death, offence falls under Part II - Sudden fight, absence of repeated blows and intoxication relevant factors. Criminal Law - Sentencing - Mitigating circumstances - Factors such as absence of pre-planning, single blow, intoxication and sudden altercation justify reduction of sentence - Ends of justice met by reducing sentence from ten years to six years. In Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Ss. 304 and 336 IPC maintained; sentence under S. 304 IPC reduced to six years while fine maintained. Cases cited: State of M.P. Vs. Deshraj,AIR 2004 SC 2764 State of Punjab Vs. Guru Charan,AIR 1998 SC 3115 Kandaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,2008(62) ACC 969 Reg Vs. Govinda,1876 ILR 1876 Bom 342 (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.)