H.P. Sandesh, J.

The revision petitioner who is accused herein has filed this revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bellary in Criminal Appeal No.126/2009 dated 15.03.2011 and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Sandur in C.C.No.1173/2007, and set the petitioner at liberty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant who filed the complaint before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Sandur under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is contended by the complainant that the accused has borrowed the hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of doing lorry transport business and issued cheque in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented through Vysya Bank, Hospet for collection on 14.06.2007 and the same was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice and the same was served on him and he has not given any reply to the notice and also not paid the amount. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the lower Court and lower Court has taken cognizance and recorded the evidence. The complainant relied upon the documents of Exs.P1 to P6 and also examined himself as PW.1 and also witness as PW.2. The accused did not choose to lead any rebuttal evidence. The Court below having considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P6, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Acting under Section 367 of Cr.P.C., directed the accused to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The same has been challenged before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.126/2009 and the judgment conviction of lower Court was confirmed vide judgment dated 15.03.2011 and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and confirmation, the accused has filed this revision petition.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the cheque was dishonored at Hospet and complaint was filed at Sandur. PW.1 also admitted in the cross-examination that the cheque was presented at Hospet and both the Court failed to consider the jurisdiction of the Court which has been raised in the lower Court. The Appellate Court also erred the same and dismissed the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in the case of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Inderpal Singh, 2016 AIAR(Criminal) 188, the counsel relied upon this judgment and contended that the amendment was occurred in the year 2015 under Section 142 of N.I.Act.

Section 142A of N.I.Act, as inserted by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015-Place of territorial jurisdiction of Court to entertain/try said offence-Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, inter-alia, in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account) when the cheque in question dated 02.05.2006 drawn on Union Bank of India Chandigarh was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore which intimated its dishonour to the payee or holder in due course, on 04.08.2006 Court at Indore would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings by complainant under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881, after promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinan