The cause of action for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money, which can be the place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located, the place where the cheque was issued or delivered, or the place where the creditor has his normal place of business.

G. S. Chahal, J.

1. This petition under sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. has been brought with a prayer for quashing of the complaint Annexure P-1 and the summoning order Annexure P-2 vide which the present petitioner is being tried for offence under Sec.138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Khanna.

2. As per averments made in the complaint Annexure P-1, complainant firm is engaged in the business of rice sheller and after processing paddy rice is produced. Shri T. K. Khunger is the proprietor of firm styled as M. s. T. K. Traders, Wholesale Merchants and Commission Agents, Aurangabad. The complainant sent 135 qtls rice of quality PR 106 in 270 containers for sale under the agency of-the petitioner and issued CST-F forms on 18th February, 1991. Copies of bills, goods receipts and Khata were also attached with the complaint with the prayer that they may be read as part of the complaint. The goods were valued at Rs.55,350.00 and the petitioner paid Rs.15,000.00 towards that price through bank draft dated 4.2.1991. To discharge his remaining liability the petitioner issued two cheques bearing No. AN/2 185660 dated 26.2.1991 drawn on the State Bank of Indore amounting to Rs.20,548.75 and No.185661 dated 4.3.1991 drawn on the State Bank of Indore, Aurangabad amounting to Rs.20,000.00 . Both the cheques were presented by the complainant to the State Bank of Patiala at Khanna, but the same were not encashed for want of funds. On receipt of the information from the bank, the complainant issued a notice to the petitioner under the registered post as well as under the Certificate of Posting within the statutory period of fifteen days. The petitioner has, however, failed to pay the amount and hence the cc m p Ia i nt.

3. The petitioner challenged the consideration of the cheques on the basis that he was only the agent and was to receive his commission on the sale of the goods. The factum of supply of goods was admitted but it was stated that the same were sent for the purposes of agency. The payment of Rs.15,000.00 through bank draft, was stated to be price of the goods sold. That post dated cheques were issued when the employee of the complainant visited Aurangabad but there was clear understanding that these cheques were not to be presented unless and until the goods have been sold and the same had been issued by way of rough estimate in respect of the value of the goods. That the petitioner has tried to take undue advantage of the cheques received.

4. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no liability of the petitioner which was required to be discharged by issuing of cheques and as such the cheques could not be enforced against the petitioners; secondly, the complaint had been filed after the expiry of period of limitation and thirdly the courts at Khanna had no jurisdiction to try the offence.

5. It is addmitted fact that the goods in the form 0 f rice had been supplied by the complainant to the petitioner. At this stage enough evidence is not on the record to hold that infact the petitioner had no liability which remained to be discharged by issue of cheques. If the petitioner has any such defence he is to establish it at the stage of the trial. Specific plea of the complainant is that the petitioner did owe money with respect to the sale price of the rice supplied. I may also add here that it Thas been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others, that the High Court is not justified in proceedings under Sec.482, Cr. P. C. in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint. Thus it is not necessary here to record a definite finding about the petitioner being under a liability for which cheques were issued.

6. The petitioner has not been able to state as to the date on wh