1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2010 Govinda Swamy : Applicant (Orig. Accused) V/s. M/s.Dynavox Electronics Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b. Mr.Vinayak V. Katti for the applicant. Mr.W.T. Balaji, Managing Director of resp. no.1 present in person. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr.Marwadi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.Balaji, Managing Director of the respondent no.1 appearing in person. 2. The present Revision Application has been filed on the ground that the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. In the present case, admittedly, the registered office of the 2 complainant is within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, the cheque was also presented in the Bank situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the same Magistrate and the notice for compliance with the provisions of section 138 was also issued from the same place. In view of the judgement dated 31.3.2010 delivered by me in Criminal Application No.2674 of 2008 (Hemlata Raghunath Pendharkar v. Jaswantsingh Rajaram Sonawane & Anr.) along with connected matter, since the registered office of the complainant, the place where the cheque was dishonoured and the place from where the notice was issued under section 138 are situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, no case is made out for interference. 4. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. B. R. GAVAI, J.