Chapter XVII - Of Penalties in Case of Dishonour of Certain Cheques for Insufficiency of Funds in the Accounts
Section 142A
Section 142A: Transfer and forum for related cheque complaints
Section 142A validates specified transferred cases and coordinates the forum for related section 138 complaints, including a rule tied to pending complaints and a separate 2015 transitional rule.
On this page
Need advice on Section 142A?
This article is for general information. Refer to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 official text for the official provisions. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.
Statutory text
Bare law
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (Ord. 6 of 2015), shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
(3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (26 of 2015), more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (Ord. 6 of 2015), before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
Key rule and applicability
Subsection (1) validates the described transfers under the amended section 142(2) jurisdiction rule. Subsection (2) addresses subsequent complaints against the same drawer where the stated payee or holder-in-due-course complaint is already pending in the qualifying court. Subsection (3) concerns multiple prosecutions pending at the 2015 amendment’s commencement.
Limits and related provisions
Do not read this as allowing arbitrary forum selection or transferring every case against a drawer to one court regardless of the statutory setting. Establish the complainant, drawer, qualifying court, pending status and, where relevant, the historical commencement condition. The consolidated quotation preserves the original procedural-code references; current procedural questions need separate verification.
Hypothetical business example
Hypothetical: a payee has a qualifying pending cheque complaint and later receives another dishonoured cheque from the same drawer. Before choosing a fresh forum solely by the second cheque’s deposit location, the payee checks the same-court rule in subsection (2).
Practical decision flow
Collect the first complaint, transfer orders if any, and proof of its present pending status.
Match the relevant payee or holder in due course and drawer across the complaints.
Distinguish the ongoing subsequent-complaint rule from the subsection (3) historical multi-court transition.
Practical checklist
Do
- Collect the first complaint, transfer orders if any, and proof of its present pending status.
- Match the relevant payee or holder in due course and drawer across the complaints.
- Distinguish the ongoing subsequent-complaint rule from the subsection (3) historical multi-court transition.
Avoid
- Do not read this as allowing arbitrary forum selection or transferring every case against a drawer to one court regardless of the statutory setting. Establish the complainant, drawer, qualifying court, pending status and, where relevant, the historical commencement condition. The consolidated quotation preserves the original procedural-code references; current procedural questions need separate verification.
Glossary
- Qualifying pending complaint
- The complaint pending in the court described in subsection (2).
- Validation of transfer
- The statutory treatment of the transfers identified in subsection (1).
Frequently asked questions
Is subsection (3) an unrestricted rule for every new multi-court situation?
No. It expressly refers to the pending prosecutions at the commencement of the 2015 amendment.
Can a second deposit location always be used for a new court?
Check subsection (2): in its stated pending-complaint setting, subsequent complaints against the same drawer go to the same court irrespective of the described territorial collection or presentation facts.
Which basic jurisdiction provision must also be read?
Section 142(2), which section 142A repeatedly references.
Need help applying this provision to your situation?
Contact BizeneedLast updated 10 October 2026