1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 867 OF 2009 Pandurang Ganpat Sawant & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh i/b. M/s. Mishra & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. Rajendra Yadav i/b. M.S. Prasad for Respondent 2. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 20th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Applicants are aggrieved by an order passed by the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay in Revision Application No. 709 of 2008. The Second Respondent had filed a complaint against the Applicants alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Applicants/Accused made an Application (Exhibit 13) urging that the Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction. That Application was resisted by the Second Respondent – Complainant and the Trial Court by an order dated 27th June 2008 rejected the said Application. While rejecting it, the Trial Court observed that the plea of jurisdiction can be decided after the evidence is recorded and the arguments are being 2 heard. In other words, it will be decided at the final hearing of the complaint. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, the Criminal Revision Application came to be preferred before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, while dismissing the same observed that the Trial Court has territorial jurisdiction. 4. In my view, all these observations are made at an interlocutory stage. The Applicants are not precluded from raising appropriate pleas with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court if they are aggrieved by the final order in the complaint. Keeping open all pleas of both sides in that behalf open and subject to this clarification, the Application is dismissed. Ad-interim order, if any, to stand vacated. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)