The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdictional aspects of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the factors determining the place of failure to pay the amount covered by the cheque.

M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

1. The applicant, who is complainant in Complaint Case No. 12641 of 2003, feels aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Chandrapur passed on 22nd October, 2010. The applicant had filed complaint case against the respondent for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Chandrapur Court. The learned Magistrate took the view that Chandrapur Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by the applicant and he, therefore, directed the complaint to be returned to the applicant for being presented before the Court having jurisdiction. It will be necessary to state the facts in brief to examine the order of the learned Magistrate as to whether the same is sustainable or otherwise. Briefly stated, the applicant has stated in his complaint that the respondent is his friend. The respondent was in need of money in the year 2001. The applicant had, therefore, given hand loan of Rs. 6,25,000/- to the respondent. The amount was to be returned within six months from the date of borrowing. The respondent, however, failed to make payment Ultimately, he had issued a cheque bearing No. 894018, dated 1st August. 2003, drawn on State Bank of India, Seminary Hills, Nagpur in the sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- in favour of the applicant. The applicant deposited the said cheque for clearance at Bank of India, Urja Nagar Branch, C.T.P.S., Chandrapur on 1st August, 2003. The cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped. Memo in respect of dishonour of cheque was received on 22nd August, 2003 and a statutory notice was issued to the respondent on 2nd December, 2003. As the amount was not paid within the period stipulated, a complaint alleging that the respondent had committed offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

2. After recording statement of the applicant on oath, a summon was issued to the respondent. It appears that an affidavit of evidence of the applicant and additional affidavits of his evidence have also been taken on record. It further appears that the cross-examination has not begun. The evidence of the applicant as P.W. No. 1 is completed on 28th March, 2006. It is on 28th January, 2010 i.e. after about four years the respondent had raised the issue of jurisdiction.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The learned Magistrate has considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3762 . After having considered the contents of paragraph 14 of the judgment and after having gone through the facts of the case before him, the learned Magistrate had come to following conclusion:

(i) the Chandrapur Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as;

(a) the cheque was not drawn at Chandrapur;

(b) the cheque was not presented to the Bank at Chandrapur;

(c) the drawee Bank was not situated at Chandrapur;

(d) notice in writing was not issued from Chandrapur;

(e) the payment was not supposed to be made at Chandrapur.

5. Though the learned Magistrate has taken support of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra), he has mainly concentrated on paragraph 14 of the said judgment. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment runs as under:

14. The offence u/s 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.

6. The learned Magistrate failed to understand the import of contents of paragraph 14, because he did not g