The main legal point established in the judgment is that liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined based on the actual issuer of the cheque, and the court's jurisdiction is influenced by the place of drawing, presentation, and dishonour of the cheque.

1. The accused petitioner No. 1 Tata Finance Ltd. filed this present misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.7.2000 by which the Civil Judge (Lower Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in complaint case No. 202/2000 in offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act took cognizance and against the order dated 21.10.2000 by which the said Court dismissed the application moved for dropping the charge.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. is a Finance Company which provides loan to the persons who purchase vehicles. No petitioner No. 2, M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company, is a sister concern and works as an agent of petitioner No. 1. That on the assurance given by the petitioner company and after issuance of cheque worth Rs. 3,25,800/-, the non-petitioner No. 1 (complainant) sold a Mahendra Jeep to one Shri Ashok Kumar Meena. The cheque No. 346274 dated 7.2.2000 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur issued by M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company in favour of J.S. Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd., non-petitioner complainant was dishonoured and the payment was refused. Upon which, the complaint issued a legal notice to the petitioner M/s., Tata Finance Ltd. and M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company on 16.2.2000 and same was received by the accused persons. Thereafter the case was registered against the petitioner company and respondent No. 2 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. After recording the evidence of the non-petitioner No. 1, complainant, the trial Court have taken cognizance against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 on 31.7.2000 and issued bailable warrant worth Rs. 4,000/- to appear before the Trial

Court on 31.7.2000. The accused persons appeared before the trial court and submitted the bail bonds on satisfaction of the trial court and submitted an application 7.9.2000 stating that the trial court has no jurisdiction since the transaction has taken place in Jaipur and the petitioner is nothing to do with the said transaction because it has taken place between the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 at Jaipur. Moreover, the cheque was issued by the non-petitioner No. 2 in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 at Jaipur. The cheque was presented at Jaipur Bank which was also returned back without encash. Both the banks of the complainant and non-petitioner No. 2 are situated at Jaipur. Therefore, there is no involvement of the petitioner and requested to discharge the petitioner by dropping the charges levelled against him so that he may not be harassed by unnecessary trial. The trial court dismissed the application on 21.10.2000. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.7.2000 and 21.10.2000 the petitioner preferred this present petition.

3. This petition was listed before this Court on 11.1.2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this court has admitted the petition and issued notice to respondent No. 1 only and so far respondent No. 2, M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company was concerned, this court vide order dated 11.1.2001 directed that as the respondent No. 2 himself is an accused and he can file a separate misc. petition before this court, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the non-petitioner No. 2 and his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondent. The trial court record was also called for and this court was pleased to stay the further proceedings against the petitioner. On 10.8.2001 this court on the request of learned counsel granted time to produce the certified copy/true photo stat copy of the document presented before the registering authority for the registration of the documents in regard to Mahindra Jeep RJ14 P8572. This court further directed that if the parties apply for any certified copy/true photostat copies to the Authority concerned, who shall issue the same immediately.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner's first argument was that the cognizance taken b