The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the territorial jurisdiction under the amended Act of 2015 and the statutory presumption regarding the service of legal notice under Section 138 of the Act.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 397(3) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioner against the common judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2014 and common order on sentence dated 09.01.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide common order dated 03.09.2015.

2. The facts, in brief, are that two complaints bearing CC No. 140/2012 and 141/2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were filed by the respondent no.1-company. The complainant company-M/s. Elcome Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.1-herein) is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which was engaged in the business of computer hardware/software, computer peripheral and other computer related articles. The petitioner was having business dealings with the complainant company. The petitioner had purchased various items from the complainant. To discharge his liability, the petitioner had issued six post dated cheques of different dates. When the said cheques were presented by the complainant/respondent no.1 for encashment, the same were returned unpaid with the remarks “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued legal notice dated 05.11.2012, but despite its service, the petitioner did not make any payment.

3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the complainant. The learned MM vide common judgment dated 10.12.2014 convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Vide common order on sentence dated 09.01.2015, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.90,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and in default of same, the petitioner was to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate criminal appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.07/2015 and 08/2015 before the Court of Sessions which were dismissed vide common judgment dated 03.09.2015.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

6. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned MM as the place of issuance of notice cannot create the jurisdiction. It was further argued that the parties are located at South Delhi and the transactions had taken place in South Delhi. Further, it was argued that the legal notice was not served upon the petitioner as it was not sent on the correct address of the petitioner. It is submitted that the presumption drawn by the Trial Court regarding service of notice upon the petitioner is erroneous. It was further argued that the cheques in question were never given by the petitioner to discharge his liability, rather the same were given as security.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned MM had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as all the business transactions had taken place in South Delhi, whereas the complaint case was filed and instituted in East Delhi where the Courts had no jurisdiction to try the same. The petitioner has raised the contention regarding territorial jurisdiction for the first time in the present revision petition. Perusal of record shows that no such plea had been raised by the petitioner before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. Neither in the cross-examination of the complainant witness nor in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had the petitioner raised this plea.

8. It is apparent from the record that the legal notice was is