BABAN MOTIRAMJI MOHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. RULE made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties finally. All these applications are arising out of the matters under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between same parties. Hence heard together. All relevant matters are between the same complainant and the accused and the prosecutions against the applicant are for the same offence i. e. under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These matters pending in the courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola and 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, details there of are as under : Sr. Criminal application criminal complaint pending before the court below no. in High Court no. 1. 836/2006 2321/2005 chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola 2. 837/2006 2689/2005 chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola 3. 1273/2006 2691/2005 judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola4. 1274/2006 1745/2005 judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola 2.

(2.) These applications arise out of the matters mentioned above which are pending in the courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court, Akola. Matters being under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent complainant relied on the contents of the complaint to submit that the complainant has his branch office at Akola and therefore, he had presented the said cheques at Bank at Akola. He had also taken me through the judgment of the Apex Court in [k. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., 2000 1 MhLJ 193 ] to contend that as the cheques were presented at Akola, territorial jurisdiction for the trial of these offences is the material aspect to be considered and therefore, the courts at Akola would have the jurisdiction over the matter. He has referred to judgment of the Apex Court reported in [baljit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of J. & K. and Ors., 1982 AIR(SC) 1558 ] to contend that the cases should be tried by the courts in whose jurisdiction the offences have been committed. He further submitted that in the present case, the bank witnesses are required to be examined and it would be inconvenient to them to attend the court at Akola as they are bank officials from Akola.