IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIONS NOS.121 OF 2009 & 124 of 2009 SHRI SUSHANT U. KHANDOLKAR …. Petitioner V/S SHRI VISHWAS MAHADEV NAIK AND ANR., …. Respondents Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 28/06/2010 P.C.: Heard. The issue is one of jurisdiction. 2. There is no dispute that the complainant was a resident of Mardol, Ponda. The loans were taken by the accused from the complainant. In a repayment of the loan, the accused gave cheques to the complainant drawn on VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Pale Branch (within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Bicholim). 3. There is no dispute that the complainant deposited the cheques for collection in U.C.O. Bank at Mardol, Ponda. There is no dispute that the demand was made by the complainant by sending statutory notice from Mardol, Ponda. 4. Following the case of K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999 (7) SCC 510), the learned JMFC, Ponda has held that she has jurisdiction to try the cases. 5. There is no dispute that K. Bhaskaran's case still holds the field on point of jurisdiction and has been followed in Smt. Shamshad Begum V/s. B. Mohammed (2008 (13) Scale 669)/2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3547 (S.C.). K. Bhaskaran's case has again been followed in M/s. Harmon Electronics (P) Ltd. And Anr. V/s. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. (2009 ALLMR (Cri) 280 SC). 6. In Mrs. Preetha S. Babu V/s. Voltas Ltd. Anr. (2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1025) a Division Bench of this Court has held that; “if the complainant calls upon the accused to make payment at a place mentioned in the demand notice and the accused fails to make payment at that place, part of cause of action undoubtedly arise at that place”. The learned Division Bench has also held that; “When in paragraph 14, the Supreme Court says that “presentation of the cheque to the bank” is a component of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is possible to hold that it conveys presentation of the cheque at the drawee bank or the collecting bank of the payee. It is pertinent to note that in item (2) of paragraph 14, the Supreme Court has used the words “the bank” and in item (3) thereof the Supreme Court has used the words “drawee bank”. Nothing prevented the Supreme Court from using the words “drawee bank” in item (2) instead of the words “the bank”. It is possible to hold that the fact that it has not done so indicates that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, presentation of the cheque can be done either at the drawee bank or the collecting bank of the payee.” 7. The case of Ahooja Nandkishore Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra (2007 (1) Bom CR (Cri) 1031) is stated to be in appeal before the Apex Court. The learned Single Judge who delivered the judgment in Ahooja N. Dongre (supra) says in Jinraj Paper Udyog V/s. Dinesh Associates & Anr. (2009 (1) Bom CR (Cri.) 612) that K. Bhaskaran's case is followed strictly in Ahooja Dongre's case as a authorative pronouncement (see para 35). 8. That being the position and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran followed in Shamshad Begum and now by Division Bench in Mrs. Preetha S. Babu (supra), the conclusion arrived at by the learned JMFC cannot be faulted. It is therefore not at all necessary to discuss the views expressed by other learned Single Judges for such an attempt will be only an academic exercise. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. Writ Petitions are dismissed. Parties to appear before the learned JMFC on 14/07/2010 at 10.00 a.m. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-