( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2009 Ajit Surendra Purandare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents Shri Ajit Surendra Purandare, party-in-person. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 03.03.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is a petition filed by the accused person being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process dated 23.02.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Ahmednagar, in S.C.C. No. 535 of 2009. 2. Briefly stated, respondent No.2 has filed complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner. It is ( 2 ) alleged that complainant/respondent No.2 and the present petitioner/accused have transactions and therefore both were knowing to each other. On 14.07.2008, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Considering previous relations, a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. For the amount of cheque received by the petitioner, he passed voucher and assured to repay the amount within eight days. Thereafter, on 17.07.2008, the petitioner went to the house of complainant/respondent No.2 at Ahmednagar and handed over a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- bearing No. 625746, drawn on State Bank of India, Sitabardi Branch, Nagpur. It was dated 17.07.2008. However, the cheque when presented at Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative Bank, Branch – Ahmednagar, it was dishonoured. Thereafter the cheque was again presented at the request of the petitioner, but it was again dishonoured on 01.02.2008 with endorsement “funds insufficient”, which intimation was given to the respondent No.2/complainant by the bank on 08.12.2008. Thereafter, notice was issued to the accused/petitioner on 01.01.2009, but that notice was not accepted by the petitioner and the packet was received back by respondent No.2 with endorsement ( 3 ) “not claimed”. Thereafter, the amount is not paid, therefore, the complaint is filed. 3. The main question that is argued before this Court by the petitioner-in-person is that Ahmednagar Court has no territorial jurisdiction and therefore the order of issuance of process be quashed and set aside. The petitioner relied upon the ratio laid down in M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd., and Anr. V/s. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009 Cri.L.J.1109. In that case the Supreme Court held that it is not the place from where the notice of disbonour of cheque was given, but the place at which such notice was received will have jurisdiction. The petitioner who appeared in person and who appears to have been well competent to conduct his matter, drew my attention to para 9 so also paras 24, 26 & 27 of Harman (Supra). In para 24 it is observed by the Supreme Court that a Court derives a jurisdiction only when the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction. The same cannot be conferred by any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused. A distinction must also be borne in mind between the ingredient of an offence and commission of a part of the offence. In the circumstances, it is held by the ( 4 ) Supreme Court that it is the place where the notice was received which is relevant and not the place from where the notice was given. I may also reproduce paras 26 and 27 of Harman (Supra) which are as under :- “26. Learned counsel for the respondent contents that the principle that the debtor must seek the creditor should be applied in a case of this nature. 27. We regret that such a principle cannot be applied in a criminal case. Jurisdiction of the Court to try a criminal case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not on common law principle.” 4. The subject of territorial jurisdiction of the Court is discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, 1999 AIR SCW 3809. The relevant paras 13 to 16 of the said case are as under :- “13. The above provisions in the Code should have been borne in mind when the question regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Courts to try the offence was sought to be determined. 14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the ( 5 ) cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : “Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expensive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.” . This case is also referred to in the case of Harman (Supra) in para 9 of said case. I have reproduced contents of the complaint of the present case. Thus, it is averred in ( 6 ) the complaint that the accused/petitioner came to the office of the complainant/respondent No.2 at Ahmednagar on 17.07.2008 and handed over the cheque of Rs. 40,000/- of that date. It is also further stated that the cheque was presented in the Ahmednagar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar Branch. However, fact remains that the cheque was drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Sitabardi Branch and therefore as held by this Court in the case of Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2007 Cri.L.J.115, it is the branch of bank on which the cheque was drawn that is material and not the branch of bank on which it was tendered for collection. Similarly, though notice was given from Ahmednagar, it was addressed to the address of the petitioner at Pune and therefore it is argued relying on the case of Harman (Supra) that in that case Pune Court will have jurisdiction. 5. So, the only ground we have to examine is whether the cheque was drawn at Ahmednagar. The petitioner has argued that issuance of cheque and drawing of cheque are different and there is nothing to show that the cheque was prepared, that is written and signed at Ahmednagar. Handing ( 7 ) over of signed cheque to payeee by drawer is part of drawing. Merely, preparing cheque and keeping with oneself will not be sufficient for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. So, in my opinion, prima facie the cheque in this case was drawn at Ahmednagar. That inference we can draw from the contents of para 2 of the complaint, the copy of which is at Exh. “A” with the petition. In the circumstances, at this stage this writ petition cannot be allowed. It is made clear that all other points are left open. 7. The petitioner at this stage states that considering that the evidence is to be led in this matter, he may be allowed to raise even question of territorial jurisdiction after the evidence is led. Considering that this writ petition is being disposed of at preliminary stage only on the basis of averments in the complaint, above said liberty is granted to the petitioner. 8. At this stage the petitioner states that he may be ( 8 ) given particular date to appear in the Trial Court, so that if he does not bring stay from the higher court in the meantime, he would be in a position to appear before the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.04.2010, unless he brings stay from higher Court. 9. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty and disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAR10/crwp1122.09