Cr. MMO 182 of 2010 17.9.2010 Present: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the learned trial Court without considering the fact as to whether the trial Court is having jurisdiction to proceed with the matter has wrongly declined the prayer of petitioner to transfer the case from Shimla to Gujarat. According to the learned counsel, jurisdiction was with Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and not in Shimla. On 1.4.2010 the case was taken up before the learned Court where it was urged that the respondent shall be discharged. Reliance was placed on an agreement purportedly entered into between the parties to show that jurisdiction to take cognizance if any was with the Courts at Bombay. This submission was rejected and the learned Court while placing reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Supramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 Cr. L.J. 4609 and Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 Cr.L.J. 4874, held that Court had no power of review its own decision when process has been issued in the first instance. Another submission made is that the application was submitted before the learned trial Court with a prayer that the case be transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). This application was also rejected by the learned Court on the ground that it was not vested with any such power. The petitioner is now in revision. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On the question of jurisdiction, all that I need to say that it is fundamental and goes to the very root of the case. In M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1168, the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of Section 177 relating to the place of trial of the case holds: “14. It is one thing to say that sending of a notice is one of the ingredients for maintaining the complaint but it is another thing to say that dishonor of a cheque by itself constitutes an offence. For the purpose of proving its case that the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the ingredients thereof are required to be proved. What would constitute an offence is stated in the main provision. The proviso appended thereto, however, imposes certain further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the ingredients for constitution of the offence laid down in the provisos (a) (b) and (c) appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act intended to be applied in favour of the accused, there cannot be any doubt that receipt of a notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of action for filing a complaint. As it is only on receipt of the notice the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. 19. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure determines the jurisdiction of a court trying the matter. The court ordinarily will have the jurisdiction only where the offence has been committed. The provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exceptions to Section 177. These provisions presuppose that all offences are local. 20. Therefore, the place where an offence has been committed plays an important role. It is one thing to say that a presumption is raised that notice is served but it is another thing to say that service of notice may not be held to be of any significance or may be held to be wholly unnecessary.” (at p.1173-1174) This is the fundamental law applicable. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of trial of the case in Harnam Electronic’s case supra. There is no such power with the trial Court. In these circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned trial Court shall determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding with the trial further. I need not to add that Court shall be bound by the decision of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd.’s case supra before proceeding any further in the case. Petition stands disposed of. September 17 , 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge