G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against an order of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 24/07/1992, dismissing a petition in Cri. M. P. No. 2282 of 1991 in C. C. No. 276 of 1991, on his file, filed by the petitioners accused under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the trial Court (i. e. , XVII Metropolitan Magistrate s Court, Hyderabad) has also got jurisdiction u/s. 179, Cr. P. C. to try C. C. No. 276 of 1991 filed by the 1st respondent herein (i. e. , the complainant) against the petitioners-accused. It is that order of the learned Magistrate that is being challenged in this revision.

( 2 ) THE short point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the case in C. C. No. 276 of 1991, filed by the 1st respondent complainant, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 3 ) BEFORE going into the legal position, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts of the case which are as follows :- During the course of business transactions between the complainant and accused, two cheques were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs. 40,440-00 and Rs. 45,000-00, drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool Branch. When the complainant presented those two cheques in the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad for collection, they were bounced as per the intimation of the State Bank of India, Kurnool Branch and the said fact of bouncing of cheques was intimated to the complainant through Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh Branch, Hyderabad. Therefore, the complainant, after issuing a statutory notice, has filed the complaint in C. C. No. 276 of 1991 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 4 ) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners-accused is that since the two cheques were issued by the accused at Kurnool and they were alleged to have been returned as dishonoured by the State Bank of India at Kurnool on which the two cheques were drawn by the accused, the cause of action arose only at Kurnool and so the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the case. In other words, according to the accused, the cheques were issued at Kurnool, they were drawn on State Bank of India at Kurnool and they were alleged to have been dishonoured by the State Bank of India at Kurnool, the Court at Kurnool alone has got jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE cheques were presented by the complainant for collection in Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh within the limits of Narayanaguda Police Station which, in turn, is within the jurisdiction of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed.

( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate has relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court, reported in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka, 1991 Cri LJ 2529 : 1991 (3) Crimes 53 in support of his finding. In that case also a cheque was issued by the accused therein, drawn on a Bank of Mysore Branch and when the cheque was presented in Bangalore Branch for collection, it was dishonoured. On its dishonour, a case was filed in Bangalore. The trial Court rejected the complaint on the ground that cause of action did not arise in Bangalore. It was held in that case as follows (at page 2531) :- "the offence falling under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be the only solitary act of dishonour by the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. Even giving of the cheque by the accused when he has not made arrangements for honouring of the cheque will be a part of the facts constituting the offence. S. 178 (b), Cr. P. C. lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another area, it may be enquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Under S. 179, Cr. P. C. when an act is an off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document