JUDGMENT
M.M. Mirdhe, J.
1. This petition is filed under section 397, read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioner against the order dated February 18, 1991, of the Sixth Additional C.M.M. Bangalore, in P. R. of Probathi Agencies v. G. N. Jayakumar.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.
3. This petition is admitted.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I have heard this case on merits today.
5. The petitioner filed a complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, against one G. N. Jayakumar alleging that the said accused maintained his business transaction with the complainant and, during the course of his business, issued a cheque for Rs. 8,300 drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, Ammasandra Branch, towards balance of purchase of hathi pipes and the cheque was presented by the complainant for collection through his banker, Vijaya Bank, N. R. Road, Bangalore. But it was not honoured and again it was represented as requested on November 17, 1990, and the cheque was again returned with an endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. It is also the case of the complainant that he issued a legal notice and, in spite of that notice, the cheque amount was not paid and, therefore, he filed the complaint alleging that the said accused has committed the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (“the Act”, in short). The learned Magistrate held that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court and directed the complainant to take back his complaint. He arrived at the conclusion that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the cheque in question was issued in the State Bank of Mysore at Ammasandra.
6. Section 138 of the Act reads as follows :
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts. – Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both :
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless –
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.”
7. In order to ascertain as to which court will have jurisdiction to enquire into a case of this type when a cheque is given by the accused at Bangalore and it is sent for collection by the complainant through its banker at Bangalore and is dishonoured at Ammasandra, the relevant provisions to the considered in this case are the provisions of sections 178 and 179, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 178, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows :
“178(a). When it is uncertain in which for several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”
8. Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows :
“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.”
9. The offence falling under section 138 of the 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, it may be enquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Under section 179, 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 offence. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sections 178(b) and 179, 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 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 complaint. 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. These are the facts which took place within the jurisdiction of the court.
10. Hence, I make the following order :
The petition is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside. The case is remitted to the lower court with a direction to it proceed with the case in accordance with law. The complainant is directed to appear before the lower court on March 18, 1991.