Ruchi Verma and Shanya analyse the case of Dashrath Rupsingh v. State of Maharashtra.
Through this article the authors try to establish an unprecedented contention that a recent judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra is inherently flawed and hampers the interests of the aggrieved in relation to the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a court to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The authors would thereby suggest their humble yet
original recommendations to tone down the damage that has already been done and to ward off a consequential disaster. As per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Judges,
currently, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.A, 1881 is maintainable only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated. However, this attracted
widespread reaction from all across the nation as it bent the law heavily in favor of the accused. Thus, this article seeks to critically analyze the issue of commission of an offence under section 138 of the Act. Starting with the legislative intent of the parliament, the article opens up to discuss the shortcomings in the interpretation of the issue by the Hon’ble judges while deciding the matter. Secondly, it deals with the practical repercussions and economic consequences arising out of the judgment. And lastly, the authors have also highlighted the court’s failure to appreciate certain important issues, ranging from “jurisprudential aspects” to question of territorial jurisdiction of courts in relation to dishonor of “at par cheques.” Consequently, public interest, commercial transactions and economy of our country have suffered a huge set back. Keeping in mind legal incongruities outlined above along with the practical applicability of their recommendations, the authors suggest an immediate reconsideration of the issue by both the legislative and judicial authority with an aim to balance the ends of justice.