( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dated 13. 2. 1992 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent was returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant is a leasing company having its registered office in Bangalore and a local office at 1 E, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The complainant received from respondent No. 1 on 25. 10. 91 two cheques for Rs. 3,60,000. 00 each being the installments due towards the lease finance charges. The said cheques were deposited by the complainant with its bankers at New Delhi for encashment on 23. 11. 91 and 23. 12. 91. Both the cheques were returned dishonoured. As per the complaint the notice of dishonour was given as per Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the notice, the respondent failed to pay the amounts under the cheques. Hence the complaint was filed. By the impugned order the learned M. M. was pleased to direct the return of the complaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE complainant petitioner is in Delhi. The money was advanced at Delhi and was repayable at Delhi. The further fact is that the two cheques were drawn on a bank in Noida, Ghaziabad (U. P. ). The cheques were dishonoured when they were presented for payment to the drawee bank at Noida. Therefore, the actual dishonour of the cheques took place at Noida, a place outside the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. On this basis the trial court felt that the courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction in the matter.

( 4 ) FOR purposes of appreciating the legal issue involved in the present case it will be necessary to have a look at Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The same is reproduced as under:-

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on- an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both; Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless - (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails, to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the. purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. "

( 5 ) THIS section was brought on the statute book by virtue of Act 66 of 1988. For the first time dishonour of cheque was made a punishable offence if the dishonour fell within the frame work of the section. With the increasing use of cheques in commercial transactions and requirement introduced regarding pay