The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction in relation to the location of the collecting bank and the notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

1. Rule.

2. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Respondents waive service.

4. By consent, heard finally.

5. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1117 of 2009, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune. The case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafater referred to as 'the complainant', for the sake of clarity) herein. The petitioner had made an application before the learned Magistrate contending that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offence, and praying that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presenting it before proper Court. However, on the ground that 'the collecting Bank was situated within the area where the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction', the learned Magistrate did not accept the contention of the applicant and rejected his prayer. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision was of the view that the Judicial Magistrate, Pune had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. As such, the revision application was dismissed. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and its inherent powers saved Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Admittedly, the cheque in question was drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Vasco-da-Gama Branch, Goa. From the tenor of the complaint, it is clear that the existence of jurisdiction to try the offence, in the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune, was claimed on the basis that 'the cheque in question was presented by the complainant for collection to his bankers at Pune'.

7. The legal position with respect to the jurisdiction of a Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the collecting bank would be situated, was not very clear. It was a matter of controversy and dispute even after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510. However, the controversy in that regard is now been settled by the Apex Court by its decision in the case of Deshrath Rupsingh Rathod V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2014(9) Scale, page no.97. It cannot be doubted now that neither the Court exercising local jurisdiction over the area where the collecting Bank is situated, nor the Court exercising jurisdiction over the area from where the notice of demand would be issued, would have jurisdiction to inquire into and/or try an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only by that reason.

8. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence in question.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in this case the affidavit of evidence of the respondent has already been filed. He submitted that this affidavit of evidence had been filed much before an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, was taken by the petitioner. He submitted that in view of the observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case of Deshrath Rathod (Supra), the proceedings before the Magistrate were not liable to be transferred to any other Court.

10. I have carefully gone through paragraph 20 of the Judgment in Dashrath Rathod case to which my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said paragraph here.

"20. We are quite alive to the magnitude of the