JUDGMENT

B. K. NAYAK, J. : Aggrieved by judgment dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2 of 2009-2011 confirming the judgment dated 21.03.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna in I.C.C.No. 39 of 2007/Trial No. 274 of 2008 convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant-opposite party, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a businessman, who deals in rice and paddy. He had business transaction with the accused-petitioner since long and in course of such transaction the accused owned him Rs. 3,00,000/- and accordingly issued a cheque on 30.01.2007. The complainant presented the cheque in the State Bank of India, Kesinga Branch, but it was returned to him by the Bank due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant thereafter requested the accused to pay the dues and the latter having not responded, he issued a pleader notice to the accused on 15.06.2007 and the A.D. thereof returned on 25.06.2007. In spite of issuance of notice the accused did not pay the money, for which the complaint was filed.

3.The defence plea was of false implication. The accused also denied business transaction with the complainant. His specific case was that he had issued the cheque to one Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Balkishan Agrawal, a namesake of the complainant, as security for advancement of a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the brother of the accused, who was in need of money for construction of a house, and that after his brother repaid the money said Sunil Kumar Agrawal returned the cheque through one Satyanarayan Agrawal, who is the father of the complainant, and that the said cheque has been misutilised by the complainant.

4.In order to prove its case the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and proved a number of documents whereas the accused examined three defence witnesses. D.W.1 is one Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Balkishan Agrawal, D.W.2 is the brother of the accused and D.W.3 is an independent witness.

5.On consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence. Appeal filed by the petitioner against such conviction and sentence has been rejected by the lower appellate Court as aforesaid.

6.In assailing the impugned judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since both the parties reside at Rupra Road, P.S. Narla in the District of Kalahandi within the jurisdiction of the learned J.M.F.C. M.Rampur and the cheque was issued by the accused was presented at the State Bank of India, Kesinga Branch, the J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. His second submission is that the residence of the accused-petitioner being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the J.M.F.C., Bhawanipatna, the J.M.F.C. should have conducted enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance, which is mandatory and that he having not done so, the cognizance is bad and illegal which vitiates the entire trial. It is his further submission that there is no evidence to the effect that the cheque was given to the complainant towards any debt and that in view of the specific plea and evidence led by the accused to the effect that the cheque had been issued to another Sunil Kumar Agrawal by way of security for a loan given by him to the brother of the petitioner and that his brother having repaid the loan the said Sunil Kumar Agrawal returned the cheque through the father of the present opposite party-complainant which has been misutilised by the complainant, the impugned orders of conviction and sentence must be set aside.

The opposite party argued his case personally during hearing and refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the pe