Point of Law: When such amendment was brought in 2015 and inserted section 142(2) of the NI Act, the very contention of the petitioner that the Bijapur Court is not having jurisdiction to try the complaint filed for the offence under section 138 of NI Act, cannot be accepted.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2013 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur thereby confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.04.2013 passed by the JMFC-I Court, Bijapur in Criminal Case No.431/2012 and prayed this Court to acquit the petitioner/accused.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is the public limited company dealing in housing finance. The complainant-Company has filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for brevity referred as ‘the NI Act’) against the accused-petitioner herein alleging that the accused had availed the housing loan of Rs.1,70,000/-under LC No.B0001484 after executing loan agreement, demand promissory note and other documents in favour of the complainant agreeing to pay the said loan in equated monthly installments and the said loan was sanctioned on 05.08.2003. The accused did not pay the amount within the period and became defaulter. He was due for a sum of Rs.2,67,054/-and for the said amount, the accused had issued a cheque dated 18.05.2011 drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch Bagalkot. When the complainant presented the cheque, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant has informed the said fact to the accused by issuing legal notice dated 02.06.2011 and demanded to pay Rs.2,67,054/-and the said notice was duly served on 04.06.2011, but the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after considering the material on record, taken cognizance and secured the accused and accused did not plead guilty and claimed for trial. The complainant in order to prove its case, examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. The accused was examined to give statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and accused denied the incriminating evidence but not led any defence evidence. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.2,97,000/-Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of payment of fine, the appeal is filed before the Principal Sessions Judge and the same is numbered as Criminal Appeal No.29/2013. The appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by the accused.

3. In this revision petition, the accused/revision petitioner’s main contention is that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the accused and sentencing her to pay fine amount. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the trial Court and appellate Court at Bijapur did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It is contended that the respondent Bank has branch at Bagalkot and further it is not in dispute that the main loan transaction has taken place at Bagalkot. The petitioner has issued the cheque drawn on Corporation Bank, Bagalkot Branch. Only fact that demand notice of dishonor was issued from Bijapur would not give jurisdiction to the trial Court at Bijapur. It is contended that the Court derives jurisdiction only when the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The same cannot be conferred by any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused. It is contended that distinction must be borne in mind between the ingredients of an offence and commission of a part of the offence. Hence, on that count itself, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence requires interference by this Court. The learned counsel would also submit that on perusal of evidence of P.W.1/complainant, it is clear that he has admitted in his cross-examination regarding filing of the contents of the c