Territorial jurisdiction under S.138 of the NI Act may be established where any act related to the offence occurred.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 30.9.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazaar, Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as ' the Trial Court'), in Criminal Case No. 364/1996.

2. By impugned judgment, the Trial Court had rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ' the NI Act' ) holding that the Court at Baloda Bazaar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute as raised by the complainant as according to the Trial Court the cause of action that arose in the instant case was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Baloda Bazaar.

3. Brief facts leading to the instant case are that the respondent Jagdish Gupta is a resident of Takhatpur and the complainant is a resident of Bhatapara. The respondent had some commercial transactions of purchase of agricultural products from the petitioner / complainant. Against the said transaction that was entered into between the parties, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 945881, dated 8.12.1995, amounting to Rs. 54,500/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Barela, Distt. Bilaspur in favour of Vyas Narayan Agrawal, Bhatapara. The cheque was given by the respondent to the petitioner at Bhatapara. The said cheque issued by the respondent was presented by the petitioner at Fafadih branch of Andhra Bank, Raipur, which in turn sent the same to the Punjab National Bank for collection. Subsequently, the petitioner was intimated at Bhatapara by his Bank that the said cheque which was sent for collection to the Punjab National Bank has been returned back with the note that the account does not have ' sufficient funds - . Against the said returning of the cheque on account of ' insufficient funds - , the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent on 11.1.1996 intimating the respondent about the returning of the cheque because of insufficient funds.

4. However, when the respondent did not take any step, the petitioner had filed a complaint case under S.138 of the NI Act before the Trial Court at Bhatapara, which had the territorial jurisdiction to hear cases of Bhatapara, which in turn registered the case as Criminal Case No. 364/1996.

5. After the recording of the evidences, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 30.9.2000 rejected the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that the Court at Baloda Bazaar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said case instituted under S.138 of the NI Act for the reason that the Bank which had returned the intimation notice to the petitioner situates at Raipur and the cheque that was issued was that of Takhatpur branch of the Punjab National Bank and, therefore, the Court at Baloda Bazaar does not have the jurisdiction. According to the Trial Court, the two places where the cause of action has taken place is either of Takhatpur with district headquarters at Bilaspur or district headquarters at Raipur and, therefore, the Court at Baloda Bazaar does not have jurisdiction and, accordingly, the Trial Court rejected the complaint of the petitioner.

6. It is this judgment dated 30.9.2000 passed by the Trial Court which has been put to challenge by the petitioner / complainant in the instant petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment.

8. Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another , 1999 (7) SCC 510 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 , dealing with the issue of jurisdiction has laid down certain broad guidelines by which it could be determine as to which Court would have territorial jurisdiction of the case initiated under