* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3255 OF 2009 Ramesh Govindan Nambiar ..... Applicant vs. 1. V.E.F.C.O. 2. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..... Respondents ----------- Mr.V.V.Salunkhe, adv.for appellant. Mr.Nitin Mulye, adv.for respondent no.1. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision Application arises out of the order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Niphad in three criminal proceedings being S.S.C.No.643 of 2005, S.C.C.No.646 of 2007 and S.C.C.No.704 of 2007 on the applications filed by the applicant for dismissal of the complaints for want of jurisdiction 3. Respondent no.1 has filed the above mentioned three proceedings against * 2 * the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant relied essentially on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran V/S. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another reported in (1999) 7 SCC page 510 and submits that the court at Lasalgaon where the proceedings have been filed does not have jurisdiction because it satisfies none of the five components under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act enumerated in its decision by the Apex Court for granting jurisdiction to a court. 4. The facts of the case are that respondent no.1-Society situate at Lasalgaon had entered into a transaction of sale of onions with applicant at Lasalgaon. For the price of the onions purchased, the applicant issued cheques drawn on South Indian Bank at Bombay. When the cheques were presented for payment at Bombay, the same were dishonoured. Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued notice through his advocate of Nasik calling upon the applicant to make the payment under the cheques. When the applicant did not comply with the demand made in the notice, the proceedings came to be filed in Lasalgaon court. 5. Mr.Salunkhe, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that since (i) the cheques in question were drawn on the South Indian Bank, Fort, Mumbai, (ii) the cheques were presented for encashment to the Branch of Bank of Maharashtra at Boribander, (iii) the cheques returned unpaid by the South Indian Bank Ltd, Mumbai and (iv) intimation of dishonour of the cheques was * 3 * given by the Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai, the only court which has jurisdiction is the court at Mumbai. 6. After going through the facts of the case, the decisions cited before it and particularly, the decision in the case of K.Bhaskaran (supra), the trial court noted that the cheque in question was not presented for encashment to the Bank of Maharashtra, Boribander. It was presented at Lasalgaon branch of Bank of Maharashtra. This fact is supported by the Bank Memo filed below Exhibit-15/1. It then took note of the fact that the basic transaction of sale between the applicant and respondent no.1 had taken place at Lasalgaon. Respondent no.1-the complainant works for gain at Lasalgaon. The trial court was of the opinion that these three factors are sufficient for exercise of jurisdiction by the court at Lasalgaon. In addition, it has taken note of the fact that the notice which was served upon the applicant requires that the applicant makes the payment at Lasalgaon. The notice states You are hereby called “ upon by this notice that, pay to my client society an amount of Rs.29,07,376/-. The address of the client as stated in the beginning of the notice is the address of Lasalgaon. With this, the learned Judge has held that it is clear that the payment was intended to be made at Lasalgaon, though the cheques were issued in Mumbai. 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned order. The learned Judge has held applying the ratio of K.Bhaskaran s case (supra) ’ that he has * 4 * jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no error or illegality in the order. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed in limine. 8. Mr.Salunkhe, prays for continuation of the ad-interim order for a reasonable period. The ad-interim order of stay is continued for a period of 2 weeks from today. [JUDGE]