1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 293/2007 M/s. Shree Marketing Prop. Shri Shreedhar Raghunath Madewar ..vs.. M/s. Vijay Tea Supply Co. Proprietor, Subhash Vijaykumar Shah -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 25 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Bargat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. De, learned counsel for non applicant. 2. The applicant is original complainant, who filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 9103/2006 against the non applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The non applicant issued cheque for an amount of Rs.24,017/- drawn on the Shegaon Shri Agrasen Co- Operative Credit Society Ltd, Khamgaon and the complainant presented the same for encashment to Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited Manewada Branch, Nagpur. The cheque was dishonoured and, therefore, the above complaint is filed in 2 the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The non applicant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by filing application at Exh.-29 containing that the Court at Khamgaon only has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The objection of the non applicant came to be overturned by the trial Court and, therefore, the non applicant was constrained to file Criminal Revision No. 519/2007 which came to be allowed by order, which is impugned in the present revision. 3. The learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur while allowing non applicant's revision relied upon judgment reported in Ahuja Nandishore Dongre ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another; 2006 (6) AIR Bombay 201 and held that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was merely presented for realisation cannot get jurisdiction to trial. It was further held that the jurisdiction has to be gathered from the place where the money was intended to be paid. 3 4. In the present case, the money was intended to be paid by the drawee Bank at Khamgaon Branch and, therefore, the Court at Nagpur cannot have the jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale