The jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the place where the cheque was issued, delivered, or dishonoured.

As the points to be considered in all the above M.Cs. are one and the same the above Crl.M.Cs. are disposed of by a common order.

2. Petitioner in all the above M.Cs. questions the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur, to entertain a complaint laid for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in the above C.Cs. within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargode and the complaints ought to have been filed before the said Magistrate. According to the petitioner, the cheques in question were issued by him within the jurisdiction of Kasaragode and the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur, will not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaints merely because the cheques were later presented by the respective complainants with their bankers at Kannur.

3. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In Muraleedharan v. Pareed, (1992) 1 Ker LT 59 : (1992 Cri LJ 1965), a leaarned Single Judge of this Court held that the cause of action arises at the place where the cheque was issued or delivered or the place where the money was expressly or impliedly payable. There can be no doubt that when a cheque is issued, by implication, the amount is payable by the drawer to the payee through the bankers of the said payee. In short, the amount due on the cheque is impliedly payable by the drawer through the bankers of the drawee. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued can also entertain a complaint. The learned Judge has extended the jurisdiction of the criminal court to say that a complaint can be laid even in a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued. The learned Judge held that the cause of action can be the place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is locaated and it can also be a place where the cheque was issued or delivered. The court within whose jurisdiction any of the above mentioned places falls has also jurisdiction to try the offence under section 138 of the Act. In fact the above judgment itself shows that the complaint can be laid at the place where the cheque was dishonoured and also at the place where the cheque was issued, which means that the complaints laid in these cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur has jurisdiction to try the offence.

4. While considering a similar question, the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 Ker LT 393 : (1991 Cri LJ 2529), held that the offence falling under section 138 of the Act will not be the only solitary act of dishonour by the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. Even giving of the cheque by the accused when he has not made arrangements for honouring of the cheque itself will be a part of the facts constituting the offence. Section 178(b) Cr.P.C. lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another area, it may be enquired into and tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Under section 179 Cr.P.C. when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Giving the cheque by the accused to the complainant and giving the cheque for collection by the complainant to its Banker at Bangalore will also be the facts constituting the offence. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 178(b) aand 179 Cr.P.C. the complaint can be filed in a Court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is not honoured.

5. Similarly the Punjab and Haryana High Court in T. K. Khungar v.