ORDER

2. The parties shall henceforth referred as they were ranked before the Trial Court. The petitioner was the accused while the respondent was the complainant.

4. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the complainant had proved that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused towards discharge of a lawful debt of Rs.3,50,000-00. It also held that since the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, the accused had committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused had challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of NI Act on the ground that the cheque in question was drawn from a Branch situated in Kerala State while the drawee Bank is situated in Karnataka. Therefore, the Court at Karnataka had no jurisdiction to try the case. The trial Court, answered this question