1 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1491 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2759 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2760 OF 2010 Global Trade Finance Limited ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b. Paras Kuhad & Associate for Applicants Mr.Prakash Naik i/b. Mr.Ruchir Dholakia for Respondent Nos.2 to 8 Mrs.M.R.Tidake- APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Respondents have filed their affidavit in 2 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) reply, which is taken on record. 3. The Applicants are the original Complainants and have filed this application challenging the order dated 6.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Court in revision application filed by the original accused. By the said order, the revision application filed by the accused was allowed and the Sessions Court has directed the Magistrate to return the complaint to the Applicants herein for presentation to the proper Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Sessions Court held that the Learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the said criminal case since the cause of action had not arisen within Mumbai. 5. Brief facts of the present case are that the complaint is filed by the Applicants herein under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of the Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra. The process was issued. A revision application was filed by the Accused in which it was alleged that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. 3 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) National Panasonic (India) Ltd. [2009 (1) All MR 479], the Learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction. It is the case of the Applicants that the they had their registered office at Mumbai and they had given financial assistance to the Respondent No.2 and had entered into an agreement in which it was agreed that the said amount paid to the respondent Nos.2 to 8 would be repaid within a particular period. The cheque which was given for the purpose of repaying the said amount was dishonoured when it was presented. It is the case of the Applicants that in Criminal Revision Application No.1491 of 2010, the cheque was presented in Chennai, a demand notice was issued from Mumbai and in the present case the cheque was presented in Mumbai. Notice was also issued from Mumbai. It is submitted that admittedly the Applicants' office is at Mumbai. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents-accused. It is submitted that in view of this, the ratio of the said judgment in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (supra) would not apply since in that case only goods were issued from Delhi where the complaint was filed. He invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.Preetha S. Babu vs. Voltas Ltd. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3158 of 2009, decided on 3.3.2010. 4 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) 6. He also relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) K.Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3762, (2) Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal V/s. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar reported in 1994 (3) Bom CR 355, (3) Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Shivam Traders reported in 2009 (111) Bom LR 4669, (4) Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s. Tata SSL Ltd. and Anr. reported in 1998 Cri LJ 4350. 7. There is some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Applicants since the Applicants have their registered office at Mumbai and the cheques in other cases were deposited in Mumbai, notice was also issued from Mumbai and the agreement was executed in Mumbai. The loan facility was sanctioned from Mumbai and, therefore, in my view, the Learned Magistrate at Mumbai has also jurisdiction to try and decide the said case. The ratio of the said judgment on which the reliance is placed will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The judgment in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Panasonic (India) Ltd. also has been distinguished by the Division Bench of our Court in the case of Mrs.Preetha S. Babu (supra). In the 5 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents, it is stated that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court since the Sessions Court had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd.(supra). 7. This being the only submission of the Respondents, the same cannot be accepted, in view of the various judgments on which reliance is placed by the Applicants. In a result, criminal applications are allowed. Impugned order dated 6th January, 2010 passed in Criminal Application No. 1491 of 2010 and impugned order dated 3rd May, 2010 in other criminal application Nos. 2759 of 2010 and 2760 of 2010 are quashed and set aside. 8. The Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed to hear the said criminal case as expeditiously as possible. The Respondent Nos.2 to 8, however, shall appear before the Learned Magistrate for the purpose of recording their plea and thereafter, they shall be exempted from appearing in the trial Court. Even otherwise, if they so desire, their statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C. may be recorded through their advocate as per the procedure laid down under section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. provided that they shall give an 6 (Crim Appln 1491 of 2010) undertaking that they will not dispute their identity and the correctness of the answers recorded in the statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C. If the Petitioners' advocate does not appear, the Learned Magistrate may proceed to pass an appropriate orders for securing presence of the Applicants. The Applicants shall cooperate with the Learned Magistrate in order to ensure that the case is disposed of expeditiously. 9. All Criminal Applications are allowed and disposed of in above terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)1