( 1 ) THIS petition is filed u/s. 397 read with S. 401, Cr. P. C. by the petitioner against the order dated 18-2-1991 of the VI Additional C. M. M. Bangalore, in P. C. R. of M/s. Probathi Agencies v. G. N. Jayakumar.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.

( 3 ) THIS petition is admitted.

( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I have heard this case on merits today.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. against one G. N. Jayakumar alleging that the said accused maintained his business transaction with the complainant and during the course of his business issued a cheque for Rs. 8,300/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Ammasandra Branch, towards balance of' purchase of Hathi Pipes and the cheque was presented by the complainant for collection through his banker Vijaya Bank. N. R. Road. Bangalore. But it was not honoured and again it was re-presented as requested on 17-11-1990 and the cheque was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". It is also the case of the complainant that he issued a legal notice and in spite of that notice, the cheque amount was not paid and, therefore, he filed the complaint alleging that the said accused has committed the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" in short ). The learned Magistrate held that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of' the Court and directed the complainant to take back his complaint. He arrived at the conclusion that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the cheque in question was issued on the State Bank of Mysore at Ammasandra.

( 6 ) SECTION 138 of the Act reads as follows : -"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. , of funds in the accounts.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of' that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. " in order to ascertain as to which Court will have jurisdiction to enquire into a case of this type when a cheque is given by the accused at Bangalore and it is sent for collection by the complainant through its banker at Bangalore and is dishonoured at Ammasandra. The relevant provisions to be considered in this case are the provisions of Ss. 178 and 179, Cr. P. C. S. 178, Cr. P. C. reads as follows : "178 (a)When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one lo