1 (crim.appln 172 of 2010 in WP. 1586 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2009 Mr.Pathan Isamilkhan Chandkhan …Petitioner Vs. Mr. Pathan Galibkhan Amanullahkhan and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Mr.G.A.Kshirsagar i/b. Mr.Sagar Kasar for Petitioner Ms. A.T. Jhaveri -APP for the State. ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:22ND NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process on the ground that the J.M.F.C., Nashik did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the cheque in question was drawn on the State Bank of India, Lasalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik. It is submitted that, therefore, the entire transaction had taken place at Lasalgaon. The cheques were issued and drawn on Lasalgaon Brach of State Bank of India and, therefore, Nashik Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the 2 (crim.appln 172 of 2010 in WP. 1586 of 2009) criminal complaint. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Panasonic (India) Ltd. reported in 2009 (1) All MR 479. 2. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is an admitted position that the cheques were deposited by the Complainant at Nashik Branch and the notice was also issued from Nashik. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Preetha Babu v. Voltas Ltd. and Ors. (paras 7), Unreported Judgment dated 3rd February, 2010 in Application No.3158 of 2010, since the cheques were deposited at Nashik and, therefore, the Nashik Court would have jurisdiction to try and entertain the application. 3. Hence, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. The Petitioner, however, is exempted from appearing in the Trial Court at Nashik. If his plea is not 3 (crim.appln 172 of 2010 in WP. 1586 of 2009) already recorded, the same may be recorded through his advocate. His statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. also may be recorded through his advocate as per the procedure laid down under section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. provided that the Petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not dispute the answers given to the questions asked under section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, if the Petitioner's advocate remains absent on more than two dates, the Trial Court may cancel the exemption granted by this Court. The hearing of the case is expedited. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)