( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 595 OF 2009 Anil s/o. Hanumandas Soni .. Petitioner Age. 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. C/o. Soni Sons Collection, (Furniture Shop), Basmat Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Versus Sugandhrao s/o. Maroti Fulpagar .. Respondent Age. 50 years, Occ. Service, R/o. B 12, Kamal Niwas, St. Quarter, Samarth Nagar, C.B.S. Road, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. Shri P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. RESERVED ON : 02.12.2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.12.2009 J U D G M E N T :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) 2. This writ petition presents question whether the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by present respondent against the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated as below :- . The petitioner and his brother Badrinarayan entered into and executed an agreement with the respondent/ complainant on 15.09.2008. The agreement was notarized at Parbhani. As per the agreement, the petitioner and his brother had agreed to purchase property of the respondent/complainant, which was western side portion of Plot No.4, Survey No. 12/2, Ward No. 12, situated at Khanapur Nagar, Parbhani. Amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid as the earnest money. It was agreed that sale-deed would be executed on 13.10.2008 and at that time balance consideration would be paid. Towards balance payment, the accused/ ( 3 ) petitioner had issued post-dated cheque of Rs. 6 lakh bearing date 13.10.2008 drawn on the current account in Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch – Parbhani. It was agreed that remaining amount of Rs. 81,000/- would be paid in cash at the time of execution of sale-deed. It is also stated that valuation of sale-deed was to be shown as Rs. 6,81,000/-, though total consideration was Rs. 21,50,000/-. It is further stated that both the petitioner and his brother Badrinarayan asked the respondent and his son to execute the sale-deed in the names of their brothers. On 13.10.2008 sale-deed was executed at Parbhani, in the name of the petitioner’s brothers – Dhanraj and Sunil and possession of the property was handed over to them. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant presented the cheque for realization in the State Bank of India, Branch – Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. The cheque came to be dishonoured. So, a notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondent, which was admittedly served at the address of Parbhani. Since, the payment was not made, the complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. It was transferred to the Court of IInd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, and he issued process under Section 138 of the ( 4 ) Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court at Aurangabad to entertain the complaint. Both sides cited several authorities. One thing is clear that the cheque was presented at the State Bank of India, Branch – Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. Secondly, legal notice was issued from Aurangabad where respondent/ complainant is residing and therefore it is argued by Adv. Shri Dhongde that Aurangabad Court has jurisdiction. In suport of it, he relied upon certain authorites. 4. In the case of K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaram Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., (1999) 7 S.C.C.510, the Supreme Court considered the aspect of territorial jurisdiction with reference to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down in paras 14, 15 & 16 is as follows :- “14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee ( 5 ) 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 five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178 (d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : “178 (a)-(c) * * * (d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired 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 expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act. “ 5. Same law is subsequently reiterated in in para 6 and 7 of the case of Smt. Shamshad Begum v/s. B. Mohammed, 2009 Cri.L.J. 1304. It is argued that the cheque was ( 6 ) presented at the bank at Aurangabad and it was dishonoured and hence the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon some authorities. In the case of Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd., and Anr., v/s. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 792, it is held that the place of issuance of notice by itself would not give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. In that case cheque in question was issued at Chandigarh by the appellant carrying business in Chandigarh. The respondent/complainant having branch office at Chandigarh and head office at New Delhi, issued notice upon the appellant asking him to pay amount from New Delhi. The notice was sent at Chandigarh. On failure to make payment complaint was filed at New Delhi. It was held that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, has no jurisdiction but the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh has jurisdiction. 7. So, merely because notice was issued by present respondent from Aurangabad will not give jurisdiction to the ( 7 ) Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. Admittedly, notice was received at Parbhani. Another question that is raised is whether merely because the complainant presented the cheque at Aurangabad, that will give jurisdiction to the court at Aurangabad. This aspect was considered in detail by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2007 Cri.L.J. 115. The learned Judge has considered the case of K. Bhaskaran (Supra) in para 8. He also referred to various other cases. In para 17 & 18, he discussed the entire law. I reproduce paras 17 and 18, which are as follows :- 17. While creating an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the parliament has not changed the whole scheme of the Act. Under Section 6 of the Act, a cheque is still defined at a bill of exchange, drawn on a specified banker. The “drawee” is the person directed to pay under Section 7, and Section 61 requires that a bill of exchange has to be presented to “the drawee” (& not to any banker), and if the bill is directed to a drawee at a particular place, it must be presented at that place. Section 72 makes the requirement in respect of a cheque clear and lays down as under : “72.Presentment of cheque to charge drawer :- (Subject to the provisions of section 84) a cheque must, in order to charge the drawer, be presented at the bank upon which if is drawn before ( 8 ) the relation between the drawer and his banker has been altered to the prejudice of the drawer.” Since all these provisions are left intact, a cheque has to be presented to the drawee bank at the place mentioned on the cheque. 18. Practice of presenting a cheque to payee's or holder's own banker does not make such banker “the drawee”. Such a banker merely undertakes to present the cheque on behalf of the holder to the drawee bank for clearance. Such a banker acts as agent of holder and not agent of the drawee bank. This can be clear from the fact that it is the holder who has to bear the expenses in clearing the cheque and not the drawee bank. Even between different branches of the same bank, branch at which holder has an account does not become agent of the drawee branch for accepting the cheque unless the cheque is one marked as payable “at par” at all branches of the bank. ” 8. Another case cited on this point is Single Bench judgment in Dipti Kumar Mohanty, Dist.Nayagarh, Orissa, V/s. Videocon Industries Ltd., Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, 2009 (5) Mh.L.J.273. Relying on the case of Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre (Supra) and other cases, it is held that the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was merely presented for realization has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. In that case the cheque was issued on the United Bank of India, having branch at Khurdu (Orissa) and presented by the complainant for realization at State Bank of India, ( 9 ) Ahmednagar (Maharashtra). The cheque was dishonoured. It was held that Ahmednagar court has no jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen at Ahmednagar. It is observed that expression “the bank” referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would mean the drawee Bank on which the cheque is drawn and not any other Bank. The presentation of the cheques in question at Ahmednagar by itself cannot be a cause of action available within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. 9. Same principle is also followed by another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shah and Modi Developers and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3038. In that case it is held that mere issuance of notice from a particular place or deposit of cheque by the accused at that place would not by itself give rise to the cause of action to file complaint in the Court situated in the said city. 10. So, in the facts and circumstances stated above, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is held that the Court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the ( 10 ) complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order dated 02.03.2009 of issuance of process passed in S.C.C. No. 2 of 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Aurangabad, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The petition is accordingly allowed and rule made absolute. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crwp595.09