JUDGMENT

B.P. RAY, J. — In this application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner assails the order dated 15.7.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri rejecting his prayer to recall the order taking cognizance.

2. The complainant-Opposite party instituted a case u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act on the allegation that the accused was sell¬ing homestead lands at Puri. She paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused to purchase a piece of land there. When the accused did not register the land in her favour, she demanded refund of the money together with interest. The accused in discharge of the said debt issued a cheque for Rs.1,67,000/- in her favour. The complainant presented the cheque for collection, but the same was dishonoured. The complainant issued a notice demanding the pay¬ment. Since no payment was made within the stipulated period, the complainant lodged the complaint.

3. Learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magis¬trate and filed an application for recall of the said order of taking cognizance. The Magistrate by the impugned order dated 15.7.2007 rejected the said application. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

4. The question of recalling the order taking cognizance is no more res integra. The Hon’ble apex Court in a decision report¬ed in (2004) 7 SCC 338, Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & others has held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any provision authorizing the Court to recall the order by which it has taken cognizance of the offence. Recall of his order by the Magistrate amounts to review of the same and no such juris¬diction has been conferred on the Court under the Code. In view of such authority, no fault can be found with the impugned order rejecting the prayer for recalling the order taking cognizance.

5. It is further contended that no part of the occurrence has taken place at Puri, therefore, learned Magistrate did not have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. It is alleged that the cheque was issued at Bhubaneswar. The same was presented and was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, therefore, the complaint should have been filed at Bhubaneswar. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envis¬ages that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. The locality where the bank is situated cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to determine the place of offence. The places where the cheque was issued and was presented for collection are the places where the complaint can be lodged. But those are not the only places for institution of the case. The offence u/s. 138 N.I. Act would not be completed with the dishonour of cheque. It attains completion only with the failure of the drawee of the cheque to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the places where either of them carries on business. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510, K. Bhas¬kar v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & another.

6. The complainant resides at Puri, therefore, she has got option to file the case at Puri. Moreover, the notice was issued from Puri. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the Court at Puri had no territorial jurisdiction.

7. It is alleged that the cheque has been dishonoured due to “Account freezed by I.T. Deptt.”, therefore, it did not at¬tract the provision of Section 138 N.I. Act. Admittedly, the accused had the liability to pay the complainant and in discharge of the legal debt the cheque was issued. Once a cheque is issued by a person, presumption u/s. 139 of the Act must follow. The object of bringing Section 138, N.I. Act on the statute appears to in