The main legal point established in the judgment is the expanded jurisdiction after the K. Baskaran case and the impact of the M/s. Harman Electronics case on territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served to the respondent and he has entered appearance through Counsel, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the reversing judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in the matter arising under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The case of the complainant/appellant is that the respondent and his father had financial transaction with him. They borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 05.05.2004 and executed a pro-note to discharge the debt. A cheque was issued by the accused on 02.07.2004, drawn at Indian Bank, Singarapettai Branch, in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented for collection in the same branch, in which the appellant also had account. The cheque was returned with endorsement "Fund Insufficient". On receipt of the intimation, for return of cheque dated 13.08.2004, the appellant has issued statutory notice through counsel at Coimbatore. The said notice dated 04.09.2004 was send by RPAD on the same day, but returned un-served with postal endorsement "the addressee not in town for 7 continuous days". Hence returned. Thereafter, the complaint has been presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, which was taken on file and summons was issued to the accused/respondent and the case was contested.

3. To prove the complaint, the appellant/complainant has examined himself as PW.1. Marked 5 Exhibits namely the pro-note executed by the accused dated 05.05.2004 as Ex.P.1, the cheque issued by the accused on 02.07.2004 as Ex.P.2, Bank Intimation Memo as Ex.P.3, Statutory Notice dated 04.09.2004 as Ex.P.4, Returned Postal Cover as Ex.P.5.

4. After considering the evidence, the trial Court has held that the subject cheque Ex.P.2 dated 02.07.2004, was issued to discharge legally enforceable debt. The complainant having proved the issuance of cheque by the accused and the return of cheque for want of fund, the accused is guilt of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, sentenced the accused to undergo 1 year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default 3 months S.I.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal before the Additional District and Session Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 230 of 2010.

6. In the appeal, the accused has contended that the trial Court has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The evidence admitted by the trial Court are inadmissible. The mandatory provisions contemplated under the Negotiable Instrument Act is not been followed.

7. On considering the grounds of appeal and re-appreciation of the evidence, the Lower Appellate court has held that when the parties reside outside the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Judicial Magistrate and cheque being presented outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, just because the statutory notice was served from the Advocate Office at Coimbatore, the Magistrate Court at Coimbatore cannot have a jurisdiction.

8. Referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd., the lower Appellate Court has held that the Coimbatore Court has no territorial jurisdiction, when no cause of action falls within its jurisdiction. The issuance of notice from the Office of the Advocate at Coimbatore, does not confer cause of action.

9. Further, the Lower Appellate Court has perused the cheque Ex.P.2 and has found that the bank seal is not affixed on it. Therefore, it doubted very presentation of the cheque for collection. The cheque Ex.P.2 which is devoid of bank seal has given suspicion about its presentation in the mind of the Lower Appellate Court. The failure of not examining witness from the bank has also taken as a reason for allowing the appeal and dismissing the com