1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2009 Afrees Industries Ltd. and Anr. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan for the Applicants. Mr. Vivek Sharma for Respondent No.2. Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the Respondent No.1 State. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009. P.C. 1. This Revision Application has challenged the order of the learned 5th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge dated 17.04.2009 under which the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in respect of cheque issued by the applicant herein came to be considered. 2. The Criminal complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate has held that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. Therefore the complaint was returned to the 2 complainant for presentation to proper Court. 3. In the Criminal Revision Application No. 409 of 2008 the learned Sessions Judge has held that Mumbai Court had territorial jurisdiction. 4. The jurisdiction of the Court is required to be determined from the averments in the complaint. In the complaint the transaction between the parties is averred. It shows the order placed by accused No.1 and the invoices raised by the complainant. It further shows that the cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. The cheques were drawn on Andhra Bank, Surat Branch and they were payable by the accused to the complainant. The accused was the debtor and the complainant was the creditor. The debtor has to seek the creditor. 5. The payment is to be received by the creditor. The place where the payment is to be received is the place where the territorial jurisdiction of the Court exists since payment under a transaction is the material part of the cause of action. 3 6. It has to be seen where the payment would be received. All the banks in India have branches all over India. Cheques can be deposited in any of these branches. The ultimate receipt of the cheque is in the account of the payee which is where the payee resides and carries on his business. In the present day banking transactions, for the sake of convenience, cheques can be deposited as well as withdrawn at all the branches of the bank. Amounts can be withdrawn at all ATM Centers. It is where the amount would ultimately be credited that the place of cause of action would be seen. 7. In this case, the complaint shows that the cheques were deposited with their bankers HDFC Bank Ltd, Surat Branch. They were returned unpaid due to insufficient balance in the account of the accused No.1. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the since cheque was actually deposited in Surat Branch, the Court at Surat would alone have territorial jurisdiction. 8. The contention is misconceived. The deposit at any branch is the facility rendered by the bank. The deposit is made only to clear the cheque at the earliest opportunity. Though the 4 facility of deposit of cheque would be available at all the branches of the bank of complainant in India, it is ultimately in the bank whether the account of the creditor is opened that the cheque would find its place. The account of the complainant is in Mumbai. Only the Mumbai Court, therefore, has territorial jurisdiction since the cheque was returned unpaid in the account at the branch of the complainant in Mumbai. 9. Consequently the material part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. The order of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the Magistrate in Mumbai shall proceed with the trial as he has territorial jurisdiction is correct. 10. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)