1 WP 435.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 435 OF 2010 M/s. Saruta Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Mohan A. Dharmaraja for the Petitioner. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr. H.E. Palwe for Respondents 2 and 3. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard finally. 2. In the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process. Challenge to the same by Respondent (Accused) in Criminal Revision No.561 of 2009 resulted in dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the present proceedings by the original Complainant. The canvass of events by the Accused - Respondent No.2, is cheque in question was presented at Narol Branch, Ahmedabad and the transaction has also entered into between the parties at Ahmadabad. Therefore, warrants jurisdiction at Ahmedabad. It would not be at the Courts in 2 WP 435.10.sxw Mumbai and in particular, 31st Court at Kurla, Mumbai. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent - Accused submits this legal position is quite exhaustively illustrated in the matter of M/s. Herman Electronics Pvt. ltd. V/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. 2009(1) All M.R. (Cri.) S.C. 280. The legal position has been clarified in the matter of K. Bhaskaran V/s. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan 2000(5) Bom. C.R. 178 S.C. This legal position was also explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Preetha Babu V/s. Voltas Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 1025. 4. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Judgment of Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(6) AIR (Bom.) R. 201, has been elaborately discussed in the Judgment of Preetha S. Babu referred above. The Division Bench did not agree to the view of the learned Single Judge. 5. The notice in the instant case un-disputedly was issued on 19.9.2007 addressed to the Respondent from Mumbai by the Advocate of the Complainant. The notice makes a demand of remittance of the cheque amount at Mumbai. The contention that the cheque was presented by the complainant at Ahmadabad is factually incorrect as the record would show that the cheques were presented with HDFC Bank having its branch at Thane. The transaction of sale of the goods to the Respondent was from Mumbai. It was a telephonic 3 WP 435.10.sxw commercial transaction of purchase and supply of the goods. This Court is not required to travel to the area of delivery of the goods or non-delivery thereof. Parties are left to get it resolved. 6. The fact remains, the transaction between the parties has taken place at Mumbai, the cheque was presented at Mumbai, the demand notice was issued from Mumbai. Amount was to be paid at Mumbai. These aspects fits the bracket of stipulation in the matter of K. Bhaskaran. The reference to the Judgment of Harman Electronics would not be coming to the rescue of Accused - Respondent as in the said case the Complainant had several branches and he issued notice from Chandigarh though transaction had taken place at Delhi and Supreme Court found that it was to humiliate and harass the Respondent Accused to face prosecution at multiple places, such prosecution is filed at Chandigarh. 7. No merit. The order of the 4th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions, Judge, C.R.No.28 dated 10th December 2009, calls for interference. It is set aside. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai to proceed in accordance with law in Criminal Case No.3014762/SS of 2007 expeditiously, as the matter is dragged for no reasons. Parties to appear before the learned Judge on 9th November 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 4 WP 435.10.sxw