1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1404 of 2005 has been challenged by the petitioners whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned.

3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the cheque issued by the petitioners was of the Bank located at Jodhpur and on presentation to the Bank at Pali, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund and returned unpaid and thereafter, a notice demanding cheque amount was issued from Pali but it was received by the petitioners at Jodhpur and after the service of notice, the petitioners failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act of 1881" hereinafter) came to be filed by respondent No. 2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Rights), Pali. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Court at Pali has no jurisdiction to try the case since the cheque was issued by the petitioners from Jodhpur and of the Bank which is located at Jodhpur. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of Kerala High Court in M.S. Santoshkumar v. K.G. Mohanan Kadavunkal House, Vattappara & Anr., 2008(4) CCC 97 and a decision of Bombay High Court in Laxtmi Travels, Nagpur v. G.E. Countrywide Consumer & Anr., III (2007) BC 422 = 2007(1) NIJ 27 (Bom.).

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 have supported the order impugned and contended that the Court at Pali has jurisdiction to enquire into and try the case filed by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhvan Balan & Anr., VIII (1999) SLT 147 = IV (1999) CCR 63 (SC) = III (2005) BC 158 (SC) = AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3762.

5. The decision relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioners are of no help to the petitioners for the reason that the controversy involved in the instant case, came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

"The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence; (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the Bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank, (4), Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It is not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Referring to Section 178(d) of Code it is clear that if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act."

6. Keeping in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my view, the Court at Pal