The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to try the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act is not determined by the classification of the cheque as bearer or cross cheque/account payee cheque.

ORDER :

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 22.06.2022, passed by the learned SDJM, Hojai in N.I. Case No. 05 of 2022, under section 138 N.I. Act, is challenged in this revision petition, under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner-Shri Nadress TU. Be it mentioned here that vide impugned order, the learned court below had dismissed the case for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Heard Mr. S. Nawas, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent.

3. Mr. Nawas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned court below had dismissed the complaint on the ground that under section 142(2) of the N.I. Act it had no jurisdiction as the cheque in question is a bearer cheque, which according to Mr. Nawas is an outcome of misreading of the relevant provision. Mr. Nawas further submits that there is no classification of cheque, be it cross cheque or bearer cheque, for filing a case under the N.I. Act and as such dismissing the complaint for being the cheque in question is a bearer cheque, is nothing but a misconception. It is further submitted that the petitioner has one account in the State Bank of India, Hojai Branch and he being the holder of the cheque had presented the same in his Bank at Hojai and in view of Section 143(2)(a) of the N.I. Act the learned court below has the jurisdiction to try the same and as such the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same.

4. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 1 also, in his usual fairness, conceded to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in view of the express provision of section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act, the learned court below has jurisdiction to try the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5. As only a pure question of law is involved in this petition, and as agreed by the learned counsels, it is proposed to dispose of this petition at this motion stage itself.

6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 22.06.2022, and I find sufficient force in the submission so advanced at the Bar.

7. It appears that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Mr. P.K. Mohammed were business partners. In discharge of a debt, the respondent No. 2 had issued a cheque, No. 000929, dated 11.11.2021, drawn in Axis Bank, Mukkam Branch, for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The petitioner had deposited the same for collection in his account maintained at State Bank of India, Hojai Branch, on 25.11.2021. But, the same returned dishonored with an endorsement that ‘payment stopped by drawer’. The petitioner then issued demand notice. But, the respondent refused to receive the same. The petitioner then filed a complaint under section 138 N.I. Act. But, the learned court below had dismissed the same on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

8. While dismissing the complaint the learned court below held that from section 142(2) of N.I. Act it is clear that in case of a cross cheque or account payee cheque, the court within whose jurisdiction the complainant has an account has the jurisdiction and in case of bearer cheque the court where the accused has an account will have the jurisdiction and since cheque of the petitioner is a bearer cheque, issued in the name of the petitioner, the court within whose jurisdiction the accused has an account has the jurisdiction, and therefore dismissed the complaint.

9. In this context, a brief reference to the relevant provision will be helpful to decide the controversy with greater precision.

10. Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act read as under:

“(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction:

(a) if the cheque i