WP.3070-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3070 OF 2010 Eknath Rajaram Patil ...Petitioner Vs. Godawari Sugar’s Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Manoj Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the earlier order passed by this Court dated 19th October, 2010, refusing to grant ad-interim relief on the statement made on behalf of the applicant that his statement under S. 313 may be recorded, be recalled. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur, on a complaint filed for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that J.M.F.C. WP.3070-10 - 2 - Kolhapur has no jurisdiction to try and decide the said case. It is submitted that entire transaction had taken place at Tambale, taluka Bhudargad, district Kolhapur. It is submitted that the cheque was drawn by the petitioner of Shree Shivaji Sahakari Bank Ltd., Gadhinglaj. Since the drawee bank is situate at Gadhinglaj, the Kolhapur Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of – (i) Ahuna Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2007 Cri.L.J. 115]; (ii) Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd. [2009 (1) SCC 720]; (iii) K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran V. Balan [1999(7) SCC 510]. 3. It is not possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court has held that bank in which payee deposits the cheque, is also relevant for the purpose of considering the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case, admitted position is that the cheque deposited by the complainant in his bank, namely Bank of India, Laxmipuri branch at Kolhapur. The notice was also issued from Kolhapur. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of - Mrs. Preetha S. Babu vs. Voltas Ltd & Anr. [2010 ALL MR (Criminal) 1025] has observed in paragraph 31 as under - “31. Therefore, the cheque can be presented at the collecting WP.3070-10 - 3 - bank of the payee. The collecting bank has then send it to the drawee bank. That must be done within six months. If the cheque is dishonoured and money is not paid within 15 days of the notice, complaint can be filed at the place where the collecting bank is situated. The idea is that the cheque should reach the drawee bank within six months. It can be directly presented to it or it can be presented through the collecting bank.” The observations made by this Court are binding on me and therefore, the submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 4. It appears that the petitioner did not attend the Court in spite of service of notice from December 2008 to January 2010 and non- bailable warrant was issued and thereafter he was produced before the Court. The trial is therefore, expedited. [ V. M. KANADE J.]