M.L. Singhal, J. - This is criminal revision filed by Lachhman Dass Papreja against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, dated 5-3-1998 whereby he dismissed the complaint titled Lachhman Dass Papreja v. Sunil Singhal,. Proprietor of M/s. Singhal and Company under Sections 138 and 141 read with Section 142 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions & Negotiable Instrument Law (Amendment) Act, 1988 holding that Panipat Court had no jurisdiction as neither the cheque had been handed over at Panipat nor the cheque had been bounced at Panipat.

2. In support of this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner (Complainant) has his residence at Panipat at 173/19. Bhatia Colony, Assandh Road, Panipat. He submits that the cheque drawn at State Bank of India, Dariya Ganj, Delhi was handed over to him at Panipat, and he presented the cheque at Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi for collection from the State Bank of India, Dariya Ganj, Delhi but was returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no allegation in the complaint that the cheque was handed over to him at Panipat. He further submits that where was the occasion for the cheque to have been handed over at Panipat when the cheque was drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi and the complainant had also account at New Delhi. He submits that Panipat Court can have no jurisdiction when the cheque was neither handed over at Panipat nor was bounced at Panipat.

4. It is true that in the complaint there is no allegation that the cheque was handed over at Panipat or it was bounced at Panipat. In para - 7 of the complaint, however, there is allegation that "the offences have been committed within the jurisdiction of Panipat Court, hence Panipat Court has, powers to prosecute the accused and punish him for the offences committed by him", In his statement recorded during the preliminary evidence also, Lachhman Dass Papreja did not state that the cheque was handed over at Panipat. There is an omission on this point. As to whether, cheque was handed over at Panipat or it was handed over at Delhi, it is a question of evidence. At the trial, it will be open to the complainant to prove that the cheque was handed over at Panipat and delivered to him at Panipat. Panipat Court would also have jurisdiction if it is proved that the cheque was handed over at Panipat and delivered at Panipat to the complainant. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by I a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

5. In this case apart from Delhi Court where the cheque was bounced. Panipat Court will also have jurisdiction if the cheque had been handed over at Panipat. After the appearance before the Court, accused had made an application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. In para 5 of that application, it was pleaded-that the facts are missing in the complaint as to how cause of action arose to the complainant at Panipat. In reply to that application, complainant submitted that the cheque was handed over to him at Panipat, where he has residence and office and transacts business. It is not a case where the complaint should have been dismissed in the initial stage.

6. For the reasons given above, this revision is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat is set aside. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat is directed now to procure the presence of the accused and try the complaint in accordance with law. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat will be liberal in the grant of exemption from personal appearance to the accused keeping in view that he is carrying on business at Delhi. While deciding complaint he will record find