PREM CASHEW INDUSTRIES Vs. ZEN PAREO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 16.1.1999 of the Metropolitan Magistrated where by the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner praying for withdrawal of non-bailable warrants. The revision petition before me, besides challenging the order dated 16.1.1999, also raises question of jurisdiction.

(2.) It has been argued before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as the cause of action which arose on the failure to make payment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, necessarily restricts the jurisdiction to the place where notice has been served and from where the amount has not been released. In support of this contention learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1988 (6) SCC 514. Learned counsel relies upon that following observations in the judgment:

(3.) From a plain reading of the above Section, it is manifest that a competent court can take cognizance of a written complaint of an offence under Section 138 if it is made within one month of the date on which the case of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138.