U.V. Bakre, J.

1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 15-7-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Criminal Revision Application No. 62/2013 and the Judgment and order dated 31-7-2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Quepem ("the J.M.F.C." for short) in Criminal Case No. 34/NI/2010/A.

3. The petitioners are the accused persons whereas respondent No. 1 is the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case.

4. Complainant has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) against the accused persons, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 34/NI/2010/A. The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows:--

Towards supply of goods valued at Rs. 23,77,536/-, made by the complainant to the accused persons, the accused No. 2 issued a cheque dated 15-8-2009 bearing No. 030281 for Rs. 11,88,768/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited Malleswaram, Bangalore (KT) 560003 and the said cheque was encashable at any branch of the said bank. The Axis Bank has a branch at Panaji Goa. The said cheque was sent for realization through the bankers of the complainant namely Central Bank of India, Kakoda branch which was presented by the said bank to the Axis Bank Ltd. Panaji branch but the same was returned dishonoured. As per the cheque return memo the endorsement was "Account closed". Thereafter legal notice under section 138 of the Act was sent to the accused persons and since the notice was not complied with, the complaint under section 138 of the Act came to be filed.

5. The accused persons filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C. for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the said Court has no jurisdiction and that transaction had not taken place within the jurisdiction of said Court and, therefore, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The complainant filed reply resisting the application.

6. Upon consideration of the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for the accused persons and the complainant, the learned J.M.F.C., by order dated 31-7-2013, held that it has jurisdiction to decide the said complaint and she dismissed the said application filed by the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31-7-2013 passed by learned J.M.F.C., the accused persons filed Criminal Revision Application No. 62/2013. By judgment and order dated 15-7-2014, learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings of learned J.M.F.C. and dismissed the said revision application. The said order dated 17-7-2014 of the Appellate Court and the order dated 31-7-2013 of the J.M.F.C. are impugned in the present petition.

7. Mr. Menezes, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 (6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 404 : 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 1 : (2014 STPL (Web) 499 SC) and contended that the learned J.M.F.C. has no territorial Jurisdiction. He read out paragraph 17 of the said judgment and urged that this paragraph refers to the location of the bank on which cheque has been drawn. According to Mr. Menezes, therefore, the bank on which the cheque is drawn has jurisdiction and even not the place where the cheque is dishonoured. He pointed out that in the present case the cheque was drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Malleswaram branch at Bangalore and therefore, according to him, it is Bangalore Court which has jurisdiction. He further submitted that in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2362/2014, between Mr. Rama