IMPORTANT POINT
Communication to complainant as well the bank before presentation of cheque that account was closed and cheque is returned unpaid with remarks "account closed" will not exonerate accused of offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Sidheshwar Narayan, J. - This revisional petition being one under Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against an order dated December 10, 1997 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. C-494 of 1997 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the prayer of the petitioners-accused persons by discharging them under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected on contest. The complainant-O.P. being a limited company under the Companies Act, 1956, had its registered office at 24, Part Street, Calcutta-700 016 (i.e. within the jurisdiction of Calcutta, West Bengal) and had also a Branch Office at Haddous Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. The complainant-O.P. was a financial institution, inter alia, providing fund for Hire Purchase of machineries and other assets for business concerns. The complaint in the case was filed by the Assistant Manager (Legal, and Administration) as an authorised representative of the O.P. company. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner accused Nos. 2 to 8 were in-charge of management of the day-today affairs of the N.E.P.C. Micon Limited, being petitioner-accused one and were also controlling the affairs of the said company. It was alleged that in discharge of his existing liability, the O.P. company tendered as many as five cheques dated 1-1-1997 for various amount, the total being Rs. 58,25,980/ to the petitioner company (accused, No. 1) drawn on Canara Bank, Broadway, Branch, Madras-600 108 in favour of O.P. company (the complainant). Those cheques were duly tendered by the O.P. company to their banker, Punjab National Bank, Park Street Branch, Calcutta for encashment but those cheques were returned by the banker of the accused persons i.e. Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras with the remark as "account closed". The O.P. company, thereafter, issued notices upon the accused persons on 14-1-1997 through their advocate demanding payment of the total sum of the dishonoured cheques within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The accused company as well as their Directors (i.e. the petitioners) received the notice on 17-1-1997, but, on expiry of the statutory period of 15 days, they neglected and failed to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheques. Hence was the necessity to prosecute the petitioners accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The petitioners-accused persons after having entered into appearance in the proceeding before the Court below med a petition for discharge under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned order by rejecting the prayer as such the petitioners feel aggrieved of the said order and have therefore, come up with the instant revisional petition.

3. The first and foremost point of challenging as contended on behalf of the petitioners was want of Jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding-in-question by the Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta and, in this context; it was contented that the underlying agreements of hire purchase between the parties with regard to which the relevant cheques had been drawn and handed over to the O.P. Company, had been made at Chennai (Madras) and not to calcutta (West Bengal). It was further pointed out that the relevant cheques were Canara Bank, Broadway Branch Madras and, it was thus contended that the alleged dishonour (bouncing) if at all any such was, there, was of Chennai (Madras) and not in Calcutta (West Bengal). Yet another point, highlighted was that with respect to some other such cheques having been dishonoured the O.P. Company had instituted criminal cases being C.C. No. 6339 of 1996 and C.C. No. 6341 of 1996 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and that being as such, the O.P. Complainant should have chosen the fo