1. Criminal Application Nos.2424, 2425, 2426, 2427 and 2428 of 2008

By these applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code original complainant seeks leave to file appeals against the judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in five Summary Criminal Cases relating to office punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the applications and appeals were first listed, notice of final disposal was directed to be issued. Thereafter R & P too was called and has been received. In view of this, leave to file appeals granted. The applications are allowed.

Criminal Appeal Nos.390, 391, 392, 393 and 399 of 2008 1.

These five appeals are directed against the judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in five criminal complaints in respect of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Facts which occasioned filing of those complaints are identical. There is substantially no dispute about facts which are material for deciding these appeals. Between 24-5-2002 and 24-3-2003, the complainant supplied paper worth Rs.20,38,357/- to accused No.1, whose proprietor is accused No.2. Both the complainant and accused ordinarily do their business at Delhi and paper was supplied at Delhi. Five cheques of Rs.60,000/- each, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Delhi were delivered by the accused to complainant towards these dues. These cheques were lodged by the complainant for collection with his bank in Nagpur, where he claims to have an office. The bank on which the cheques were drawn, i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Delhi, intimated to the complainant's bankers that the cheques were dishonoured, and the said bank, in turn, sent intimation of dishonour to complainant. The complainant sent notices of demand from his Nagpur office to the accused, which were duly received by them. As the accused failed to pay, the complainant filed five complaint cases before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur on 3-2-2004.

3. Upon issuance of process, accused appeared, pleaded not guilty, but did not raise any question about jurisdiction of the Courts at Nagpur to entertain the complaints. Complainant tendered affidavits in evidence on 26-7-2006 in these cases and was cross-examined.

4. On 4-9-2006, this Court (in fact, I) delivered a judgment in Ahuja S/o Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3357, in respect of jurisdiction in cases of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that presentation of a cheque contemplated its presentation to the drawee bank. This judgment is reportedly challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition on 2-2-2007 in which the Apex Court is stated to have issued notice.

5. On 13-11-2007, the accused filed his own affidavits, and examined himself in defence. By judgment dated 2-5-2008, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the accused in all the five cases relying on my judgment in Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre's case.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the entire transaction had in fact taken place in Delhi. However, he states that since such cases take a longer time for decision in Courts in Delhi, his client chose to lodge the cheques for collection with a bank at Nagpur and also issued a notice from an office located at Nagpur in a business associate's premises, so that he could lodge a complaint in Nagpur Courts, where adjudication is comparatively faster. According to him, if law permitted this course, there was nothing wrong in choosing a forum.

7. His learned adversary submitted that in fact complainant does not have any office in Nagpur. No registration under the Shops and Establishments Act or other document is produced to show that there is such an office. He was informed that even the account in bank at