IMPORTANT POINT
Though the complainant may have accounts at several places, it does not follow that the complainant could file complaint at the place where he had an account because jurisdiction would have to be gathered from the place where money was intended to be paid.

N.A. Britto, J.—Does the learned JMFC, Margao has territorial jurisdiction to try the complainant’s complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

2. That is a short question for consideration before this Court, in this petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) challenging the order dated 13.8.2007 of the learned JMFC, Margao.

3. Heard learned counsel on behalf of both parties.

4. The facts are hardly in dispute. The accused have only disputed the complainant’s allegation that the complainant had advanced loan in cash of Rs.63,00,000 at Margao. There is no dispute that the complainant as well as the accused reside within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji. The subject cheques bearing No.24112 dated 16.11.2004, and bearing No.24111 dated 19.11.2004, for Rs.30,00,000 each were given by the accused to the complainant drawn on Bank of Goa, Ltd., Santa Cruz Branch, which is also situated within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji. The said two cheques were crossed and the complainant deposited the same for payment in his account with State Bank of India, at Margao but were returned dishonoured by the Bank of the accused with the endorsement that the funds were insufficient. The complainant sent a notice dated 1.12.2004 through his advocate, having his office at Margao within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Margao but at the same time making it clear that it was being sent on behalf of the complainant who was the resident of Ribander, within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Panaji. Paras 3 and 4 of the notice read as follows:

3. My client has instructed me to bring to your attention this notice for making payment of the said cheques, Rs.30,00,000 and Rs.30,00,000 respectively, within fifteen days of receipt of this notice, failing which you shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. In the event the said payment is not made by you within the said period of fifteen days, as referred to in the preceding para, my client will initiate and prosecute legal proceedings against you, which will be wholly and entirely at your risk as towards the costs and the consequences thereto.

5. After the accused came to know of the judgment of this Court in Ahuja Nand Kishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 the accused filed an application dated 20.4.2007 stating that the learned JMFC, Margao before whom the complainant-respondent No.1 had filed the said case had no jurisdiction to entertain the same in the light of the aforesaid judgment and therefore appropriate orders may be passed in the said case. The said application came to be rejected by the learned JMFC, Margao by order dated 13.8.2007. In rejecting the said application, the learned JMFC referred to the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr.2 and observed that the Apex Court had stated that if five acts were done in five different localities anyone of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the accused under Section 138 of the Act. The learned JMFC also noted that the subject cheques were account payee cheques and therefore they were intended to be paid at the place where the accused had an account and since the complainant had presented the subject cheques for payment in the State Bank of India, Margao Branch, the JMFC, Margao had jurisdiction to try the case. The learned JMFC also noted that the demand notice was issued from Margao and therefore the case was covered by the principles stated in K. Bhaskaran (supra).

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the accused, contends that the legal notice did not state as to where the amount of the cheques was required to be paid and in such a situation the payment had to be made at the address of the complainant i.e. within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji. Learned counsel further contends that this is a case where both the complainant as w