The main legal point established in the judgment is that a finding, sentence, or order of any Criminal Court shall not be set aside merely on the ground of wrong territorial jurisdiction unless it has occasioned a failure of justice, as provided under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 31-S/10 of 2009 dated 23.01.2012 vide which, learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla in Cri. Complainant No. 402/3 of 2007/06.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present case are that in a complaint filed by the present respondent (hereinafter referred to as "complainant) under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner/accused, learned trial Court returned the findings of conviction against the accused for having committed offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly it sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 19000/- to the complainant. As per the complainant, the accused was well acquainted with him and both of them knew each other since long. Accused approached the complainant and requested him to lend an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- for meeting out domestic expenses and also for doing business. The said amount was lent by the complainant to the accused and in lieu of the same, accused issued post dated cheque No. 966545 dated 14.10.2006 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cheque No. 966546 dated 14.10.2006 for an amount of Rs. 18,000/- in favour of the complainant, both payable at UCO Bank, Kotkhai. Further, as per the complainant, when he presented the said two cheques to his banker, the same were dishonoured by the bank of the accused on the ground "funds insufficient". Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the accused and he was called upon to make good the payment. When despite this, the accused did not pay the said amount to the complainant, he filed a complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, Notice of Accusation was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant examined three witnesses. Though initially the accused intended to lead evidence in his defence, but subsequently vide separate statement, he closed his evidence without examining any defence witness.

5. On the basis of material on record, learned trial Court held that the accused had not disputed the loan transaction as entered between him and the complainant and issuance of cheques in lieu of the same as well as the factum of dishonouring of the said cheques, but he had come up with the defence that he had taken loan from the elder brother of the complainant and the said loan already stood returned to him. Further, as per learned trial Court, the defence so put up by the accused could not be corroborated and on the other hand, the complainant on the basis of material on record was able to prove that in lieu of loan advanced by him to the accused, the accused had issued two cheques in his favour which were dishonoured. Accordingly, learned trial Court allowed the complaint and convicted the accused.

6. It is relevant to refer at this stage that during the course of trial of the said case before the learned trial Court, no objection at any stage was taken by the accused to the effect that learned trial Court was not having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal. Learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2012 upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court demonstrates that two points were argued in appeal on behalf of the accused and these points were:

(a) that the case of the complainant as narrated in the compla