D.G. KARNIK, J.

1. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble U. D. Salvi, J ), he noticed that the view taken by him in his earlier decision in Crompton Greaves Limited V/s M/s Shivam Traders ( Criminal Revision Application No. 7 of 2009 decided on 17.11.2009) was in conflict with the view taken by Kingaonkar, J sitting at Aurangabad Bench in his decision in Dipti Kumar Mohanty V/s Videocon Industries Ltd., ( Criminal Writ Petition No. 497 of 2008 decided on 17.02.2009;) and directed that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us under the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. The case pertains to an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the question involved is which magistrate will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The lead decision on the question is rendered by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran V/s Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, AIR 1999 SC 3762. Therein the Supreme Court has considered the meaning and the effect of clause (d) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr. P. C”) which provides : where it (offence )consists of several acts done in different local areas it may be inquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Analyzing several acts necessary for culmination of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act, in para 14 of the decision the Supreme Court has held :

“14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice”.

From the decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that any magistrate within whose jurisdiction one or more of the five acts mentioned in paragraph 14 of its decision in K. Bhaskaran's case take place would have a jurisdiction to inquire into and try the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We would now proceed to indicate which are the places where the five acts mentioned in the decision of K. Bhaskaran take place. Place No. 1 – Where the cheque is drawn :

3. Under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cheque is a negotiable instrument. Ordinarily a cheque is drawn at a place where the drawer of the cheque writes and signs the cheque. Where however the drawer writes the cheque and keeps it in his own possession that does not create any liability against him or in favour of the payee. It is only when the drawer of the cheque delivers it to the payee that the payee becomes an holder as defined in Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the drawer becomes liable under it. It, therefore, stands to reason that the drawing of the cheque becomes complete and the cheque becomes a negotiable instrument when it is delivered to the payee or his agent. Mere writing and signing of a cheque may not, therefore, be enough to hold that the cheque is drawn at the place where it is written and signed because the cheque would become negotiable instrument in the hands of the payee only when it is delivered to the payee or his agent. Place No. 2 : Presentation of the cheque to the bank.

4. The determination of the place of presentation of the cheque poses some difficulty, especially when the cheque is drawn on a bank and the branch where the accused (drawer of the cheque) maintains his account is situate in a city or town different than the city or town where the payee (holder) maintains his bank account and deposits the cheque in his (holder's) bank for collection. The question