JUDGMENT
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. This criminal revision case is directed against an order of the Seventeenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated July 24, 1992, dismissing a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 2282 of 1991, in C.C. No. 276 of 1991, on his file, filed by the petitioners-accused under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that the trial court (i.e., Seventeenth Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Hyderabad) has also got jurisdiction under section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, to try C.C. No. 276 of 1991, filed by the first respondent herein (i.e., the complainant) against the petitioners-accused. It is that order of the learned Magistrate that is being challenged in this revision.
2. The short point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the court of the Seventeenth Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the case in C.C. No. 276 of 1991, filed by the first respondent-complainant, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Before going into the legal position, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts of the case which are as follows :
During the course of business transactions between the complainant and the accused, two cheques were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs. 40,440 and Rs. 45,000, drawn on the State Bank of India, Kurnool branch. When the complainant presented those two cheques in the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh branch, Hyderabad, for collection, they bounced as per the intimation of the State Bank of India, Kurnool branch, and the said fact of bouncing of the cheques was intimated to the complainant through the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheer Bagh branch, Hyderabad. Therefore, the complainant, after issuing a statutory notice, has filed the compliant in C.C. No. 276 of 1991, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners-accused is that since the two cheques were issued by the accused at Kurnool and they were alleged to have been returned dishonoured by the State Bank of India at Kurnool on which the two cheques were drawn by the accused the cause of action arose only at Kurnool and so the court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the case. In other words, according to the accused the cheques were issued at Kurnool, they were drawn on the State Bank of India at Kurnool and they were alleged to have been dishonoured by the State Bank of India at Kurnool, the court at Kurnool alone has got jurisdiction.
5. The cheques were presented by the complainant for collection in the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh within the limits of Narayanaguda Police Station which, in turn, is within the jurisdiction of the Seventeenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed.
6. The learned Magistrate has relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka [1991] 3 Crimes 53; [1992] 73 Comp Cas 431 in support of his finding. In that case also a cheque was issued by the accused therein, drawn on a Bank of Mysore branch and when the cheque was presented in Bangalore branch for collection, it was dishonoured. On its dishonour, a case was filed in Bangalore. The trial court rejected the complaint on the ground that the cause of action did not arise in Bangalore. It was held in that case as follows (at page 433 of 73 Comp Cas) :
“The offence falling under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be the only solitary act of dishonour by the bank on which the cheque is drawn. Even giving of the cheque by the accused when he has not made arrangements for honouring of the cheque itself will be a part of the acts constituting the offence. Section 178(b), Criminal Procedure Code, lays down that when an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another area, it may be enquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. Giving the cheque by the accused to the complainant and giving the cheque for collection by the complainant to its banker at Bangalore will also be the acts constituting the offence. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sections 178(b) and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complaint can be filed in a court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is not honoured. In view of this position of law, the learned Magistrate was wrong in coming to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant. He has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the fact that the cheque was issued by the accused at Bangalore and the cheque was given for collection by the complainant to its banker at Bangalore …..”
7. This decision of the Karnataka High Court is directly applicable to the case on hand on all fours. From the above decision it is clear that the cause of action will arise where the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or where the cheque is dishonoured. In this case, the cheques were presented at the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh branch of Hyderabad, for collection, which is within the jurisdiction of the Seventeenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
8. In Criminal Petition No. 1266 of 1991, dated September 1, 1992 (Dynamatic Forgings India Ltd. v. Nagarjuna Investment Trusts Ltd. [1994] 79 Comp Cas 583 (AP)), my learned brother, Iyyapu Panduranga Rao J. took the same view. In this case, a contract of hire purchase was entered into at Bombay. The payment was proposed to be made at Bombay. The dishonouring of the cheque took place at Bombay. The first petitioner and the first respondent had meetings to discuss the payment of money at Bombay and after the dishonour of the cheque there have been several meetings between the first petitioner and the first respondent at Bombay. In those circumstances it was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in that criminal petition that the offence, if any, was committed only at Bombay and the courts at places other than Bombay have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. On the other hand, it was the contention of the first respondent that the cheques were issued to the first respondent at Hyderabad, that the cheques were presented for collection at Hyderabad, that the first respondent received information regarding bouncing of the cheques only at Hyderabad and that, therefore, the courts at Hyderabad have got jurisdiction. After careful analysis of the respective contentions, the learned judge held that it is to be seen that the office of the first respondent is located at Nagarjuna Hills at Hyderabad, over which the Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has jurisdiction, that the cheque was issued in favour of the first respondent-company with its head office at Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad, that the said cheque was presented at Hyderabad for collection and that consequently part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad by virtue of section 178 and 179 of Criminal Procedure Code and consequently the court at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the offence. To the same effect are the decisions reported in Ess Bee Food Specialities v. Kapoor Brothers [1992] Crl. LJ 739; [1993] 78 Comp Cas 570 (P & H) and Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store v. Punjab National Bank [1992] ISJ (Banking) 111. In Ess Bee Road Specialities v. Kapoor Brothers [1992] Crl. LJ 739; [1993] 78 Comp Cas 570 (P & H), a case was instituted at a place where the cheque was dishonoured and it was held that the court where the cheque was dishonoured has jurisdiction. In Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store v. Punjab National Bank [1992] ISJ (Banking) 111, a cheque was presented for collection at Bangalore and it was dishonoured and it was held that the court at Bangalore has got jurisdiction to try the case.
9. On a plain reading to sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the contention that the acts of the accused alone constitute a cause of action for determining the jurisdiction does not hold water. Section 177 provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The competency of a forum to take cognizance of an inquiry into, and trial of, an offence is determined by the place at which the offence may have been committed. Where the offence consists of several acts done in different areas, the section leaves the place of trial open. In section 178(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code it is laid down that where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas it may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. The section provides for four contingencies, viz., (1) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence is committed; (2) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; (3) where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; and (4) where an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensured. Under this section, a person accused of the commission of an offence is triable by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the act amounting to the offence has been done or the consequence of that acts has ensued. This section applies to those offences which by their very definition consist of an act and its consequences. In Madan Mohan v. Renuka [1981] Crl. LJ 1301 (Pat), it held as follows :
“It may be that the forgery, if any, was done at Darbhanga or at Samastipur. But it was sent to the Registrar of Firms at Patna. The fraudulent or dishonest use of the document has been made at Patna also. For an offence under section 471, Indian Penal Code, the necessary ingredient is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. In my opinion, therefore, the offence which started at Darbhanga or Samastipur was completed at Patna. In such circumstances, it is the provision of section 178, Criminal Procedure Code, which would apply and, in that view of the matter, the court at Patna also could safely exercise jurisdiction in the matter.”
10. A cause of action is a bundle of facts. Issuance of a cheque, presentation of the cheque, endorsement of dishonour, issuance of a statutory notice and the location of the office of the person in whose favour the cheque was issued are all factors which are to be taken into account for deciding the cause of action. The cause of action need not be confined to a particular transaction where an offence is alleged to have been committed. In cases filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a series of acts will result at different places. As already discussed, giving the cheque by the accused to the complainant and presenting the same for collection by the complainant at his place will also be the facts constituting the offence. So the place where the cheque has been issued also has got jurisdiction and the place where the intimation has been received from the collecting bank also confers jurisdiction.
11. In this connection a reference may also be made to the decision in Jivandas Savchand, In re, AIR 1930 Bom 490 [FB], which deals with the question of jurisdiction in a case filed for the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was held by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court as follows (headnote) :
“What section 179 provides is that when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of two things, by reason, first, of anything which has been done, and, secondly, of any consequence which has ensued, then jurisdiction is conferred on the court where the act has been done or the consequence has ensued. The offence, therefore, must be charged by reason of the two things, the act done and the consequence which ensued; and the consequence, therefore, forms the necessary part of the offence.”
12. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the complaint can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque has been drawn or the place where the cheque is presented for collection and an endorsement received about the dishonour of the cheque or the place where the cheque is dishonoured. In this case the cheques drawn on the State Bank of India, Kurnool branch, were presented at the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh branch of Hyderabad, for collection where a part of the cause of action arose. Therefore, the court at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the case. Under those circumstances, the learned Magistrate is perfectly right in dismissing the petition filed by the accused which does not call for interference.
13. The criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed.