IMPORTANT POINT
When cheque was drawn by a company & signed by Managing Director& it was dishonoured then demand notice issued to Managing Director in his individual name was not a valid notice u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

V.K. Barde. J. - Rule Returnable forthwith.

These two applications are between the same parties and raise common points for consideration. Hence, those are being disposed of by common judgment.

2. The present respondent has, filed two complaints against the present petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First class. Chopada, for offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act being S.C.C. Nos. 155/95 and 156/ 95.

3. The Summary Criminal Case No. 155/95 is filed in respect of four cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each issued on 17-6-1994; 22-6-1994; 27-6-1994 and 5~7-1994. The complaint has contended that the accused had purchased cotton bales from the complainant on credit and the cheques were issued towards the consideration of the cotton bales sold. The complainant presented the cheques in the State Bank of India, Chopada. However, on 14-12-1994, he received information from the Bank that cheques were dishonoured. The complainant then sent notice of demand of the amount of the cheques by registered post acknowledgment due (R.P.A.D.). However, on 27-12-1994, the accused refused to accept the notices. The accused also did not settle the amount under the cheques within the prescribed period. Hence, the complaint is filed on 10-2-1995. The complainant has contended that the transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chopada and therefore, the matter was maintainable before that Court. He alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 10-2-1995 issued process against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The present petitioner thereafter filed application for calling the order of issuance of process before the J.M.F.C., Chopada, but that application was rejected on 19-10-1996. Hence, the present application.

5. The. S.C.C. No. 156/95 was filed with respect to two cheques of Rs. 1,75,000/- each issued on 12-5-1994 and 14-5-1994 again towards the price of bales of cotton sold by the complainant to the accused. The cheques were presented by the complainant in State Bank of India, Chopada Branch and on 29-11-1994 he received the information that the cheques were dishonoured. He sent a notice dated 12-12-1994 by R.P.A.D. to the accused and demanded the amount of cheques. However, the accused failed to reply the notice and failed to make the payment. The complainant has contended that the transaction had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Chopada and the accused committed the offences punishable under section 108 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged on 10-2-1995. The learned Magistrate issued process against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Here also the application was filed by the accused to recall the order of issue of process but the said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 19-10-1996.

6. The two applications are filed on the ground that J.M.F.C. Chopada has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. All transactions had taken place at Coimbatore. The amount was to be paid at Coimbatore. The complainant has a branch at Coimbatore. Only because cheques were presented in the State Bank of India, Branch at Chopada, the complaint cannot be filed before J.M.F.C., Chopada. The Court at Chopada is not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So the order of issuance of process be quashed.

7. It is also contended in both the applications that separate notices ought to have been issued regarding the separate cheques. However, the complainant has issued one notice regarding two cheques and another notice regarding four cheques and that is improper. The petitioner has also