The court where the cause of action initially arose has jurisdiction to try the offence of dishonour of cheque, even if the cheque was issued or presented for collection in a different jurisdiction.

G.L. Gupta, J.-This misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC is directed against the order dated 27-1-99 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-accused dated 2-11-98.

2. The relevant facts are these, respondent Surendra Kumar deals in cotton at Sri Ganganagar. Accused Naresh Chandra, who is a trader of Kanpur, purchased cotton from the complainant respondent from 1-10-95 to 31-3-96 worth Rs. 12,20,7826. After understanding the account, the petitioner accused accepted the liability and gave seven cheques worth Rs. one lakh each payable on various dates to the complainant at Abhore. The cheques were drawn on the State Bank of India, Kanpur. The complainant respondent presented those cheques for collection to the State Bank of Patiala, Abhore Branch on 10-12-96. The State Bank of India, Kanpur, however, did not honour the cheques and returned them with a note ‘refer to drawer’. The complainant respondent, gave notice to the petitioner accused on 9-1-97 from his advocate at Abhore. As payment was not made by the respondent accused, complainant Surendra Kumar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganaga

3. After the accused petitioner appeared in Court, he filed an application Under Section 219, CrPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter. In his reply, the complainant respondent pleaded that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner accused.

4. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that no cause of action or part of it had arisen at Sri Ganganagar as the cheques were issued by the petitioner at Abhore, they were presented to the Bank at Abhore, they were dishonoured at Kanpur and even the notice of dishonour was given to the petitioner from Abhore. He submitted that either the Court at Abhore or Court at Kanpur only could entertain the matter. He relied on the cases of A.M. Kunhi v. K.K. Abdul 1996 CriLJ 2395 (Kerala) and Alpana v. Mohan Lal 1993 CriLJ 1008 (Him Pra). The further contention of Mr. Singh was that Under Section 219, CrPC only three offences of the same kind committed within a period of twelve months may be charged and tried together and as the instant case is of dishonour of seven cheques, they could not be made subject matter of one complaint and one charge. He cited the case of Printo Stick v. M.L. Oswal 1997 CriLJ 2122 (Madras).

5. On the other hand Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the accused-petitioner had purchased cotton from Sri Ganganagar, therefore, initial cause of action had arisen at Sri Ganganagar. According to him, it was the duty of the accused petitioner to make payment at Sri Ganganagar after the cheques had been dishonoured and therefore, the Court at Sri Ganganagar has got jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He cited the cases of Rakesh Hemkumar Porwal v. Narain Dhendu Joglekar 1993 CriLJ 680 (Bombay)and M.M. Malik v. Prem Kumar 1991 CriLJ 2594(Punj & Har).

6. I havegiven the matter may thoughtful consideration. It is not disputed that the accused-petitioner had purchased cotton from the respondent at Sri Ganganagar. It has therefore, to be accepted that the initial cause of action had arisen at Sri Ganganagar.

7. It will not make any difference that the cheques had not been issued at Sri Ganganagar and the intimation of dishonour was not received by the complainant at Sri Ganganagar or that the notice of dishonour was not sent from Sri Ganganagar. In the matter of dishonour of cheques, the cause of action arises oniy after a notice of dishonour is sent to the drawer and yet the drawer fails to make the payment of the amount of the cheque to the payee. Once the notice was sent to the accused petitioner that the cheques issued by him had been dishonoured by the Ban