DHIRENDRA MAJUMDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Revisional Application by the Complainant-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code) is directed against the Order dated 31st December. 1992 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 9th Court, Calcutta, in Case No. C/531 of 1992 before him holding that he has no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid case, acquitting the Opposite-Party No. 2-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) and discharging him from the bail bond in terms thereof, for the reasons recorded therein.

(2.) THE aforesaid case arose out of a petition of complaint filed by the Petitioner against the accused for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Sections 406/420, I. P. C. , on the allegations made therein. The accused having filed a petition before the Learned Magistrate that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case as the cause of action far the alleged offence is stated to have arisen outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the Learned Magistrate had allowed his application by passing the aforesaid impugned order.

(3.) THE accused had sought to contend that the relevant cheque had been, issued by him, drawn on the United Bank of India at Sodpur Branch, which was produced at the said Bank at Sodpur, where it was dishonoured. The delivery in goods in question is also stated to have been made by the Petitioner from his factory at Sodpur, outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate appears to have accepted the said contention of the accused while passing the impugned order. During the hearing of this Revisional Application before this Court, the Learned Advocate for the accused had referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in in mark Finance and investment Co. Put. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court at Bombay and Ors. , 1992 (1) C. H. N. 200 in support of his contention.