BHARAT QUMAR NANDY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. The present revisional application has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 6th Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2012 affirming the order dated 26th June, 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C-19583 of 2008 (corresponding to T.R. No. 1971 of 2008).

(2.) The case relates to a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by opposite party No. 2 against the present petitioner who was the accused and therein the petitioner/accused filed a petition praying for dropping of the case on the ground that learned Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said petition was dismissed against which the present petitioner went up in revision but the revision case was also dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge.

(3.) On going through the records and upon hearing learned Advocates, I find that five different cases being C-35800 of 2008, C-35801 of 2008, C-35802 of 2008, the present case (C-19583 of 2008) and C-19582 of 2008 were instituted by the present opposite party No. 2/her husband under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in three cases, being C-35800 of 2008, C-35801 of 2008 and C-35802 of 2008, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the complainant in the said cases was given liberty to withdraw the said cases and to file the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complainant filed petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who allowed the prayer for withdrawal and gave liberty to the complainant to file the case before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction at Alipur, xerox copies of the orders in this regard having been annexed to this revisional application. However, as regards other two cases, which were decided by another Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, it was held that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the case.