Judgment

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The question is whether the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, where the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had the jurisdiction to entertain the same.

4. Learned counsel for the rival parties have invited our attention, to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, and have drawn our attention to the following observations recorded therein:

“22. 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 respondent-accused 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