1. This appeal, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2013, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dibrugarh, in Case No. 215C/2011, acquitting the accused, namely, Zabir Mifta Rahman, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. I have heard Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant- appellant and Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel, for accused-respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant, Ashraf Nadeen Hussain, as complainant, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1988 (in short ‘NI Act’) at Dibrugarh, on 26.07.2011, which gave rise to Case No. 215C/2011. The Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dibrugarh, took cognizance of the case under Section 138 of NI Act and at the end of the trial, the accused was acquitted due to lack of territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well as on merit.

4. The allegation made in the complaint is that, the accused/respondent took an amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs from the complainant for his business investment on condition that he would return the same within a specified time. But the accused/respondent did not return the amount to the complainant/appellant. After repeated requests and reminders, the accused issued an account payee cheque of HDFC Bank, Khanapara, Guwahati, bearing cheque No. 265556 dated 15.01.2011, to the complainant/appellant. The complainant/appellant deposited the cheque in Axis Bank, Dibrugarh on 27.04.2011 for collection. However, the cheque was dishonoured by HDFC Bank. The complainant deposited the cheque for the second time on 28.05.11, on the advice of the accused and, this time too, the cheque was dishonoured. On query, complainant/appellant came to know that there was insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused/respondent.

5. Then, the complainant/appellant issued a legal notice to the accused/respondent under registered post on 09.06.2011 from Dibrugarh, which he received on 13.06.2011. The accused, inspite of receipt of the notice, did not make the payment within the statutory period. Hence, the complaint.

6. The accused/respondent appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and contested the proceedings.

7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused.

8. In his appeal, the complainant/appellant has taken the following grounds:

(a) That, learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in holding that the learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction after taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, moreover after conclusion of the trial.

(b) That, the cheque, in question, having been presented to the Axis Bank at Dibrugarh for payment and the cheque having been dishonoured at Dibrugarh, cause of action arose at Dibrugarh. Hence, learned Magistrate committed a glaring illegality in holding that he had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case and thus caused serious failure of justice.

(c) That, the learned Magistrate has misinterpreted the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to “the territorial jurisdiction of a Court to try an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.”

(d) That, the learned Magistrate ought not to have acquitted the accused/respondent rather returned the complaint for presentation to the proper Court, as provided in Clause (a) of Section 201 Cr.P.C.

(e) That, the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction at the stage of argument.

(f) The findings of the learned Court below that the Court has no jurisdiction is perverse being contrary to the materials on record and the law, for which the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and quashed.

9. On a reading of the judgment, under chal