PYARE LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the order dated 29.09.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short "the revisional court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.33/2008 has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the revisional court has maintained the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short "the trial court") in criminal Case No.543/2007.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 M/s. Shriyam Financial Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act of 1881 "): According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the averments made in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, it is clear that the cause of action has arose to the complaint at Sikar and not at Bikaner. In Para 4 of the complaint, it has specifically been stated that the petitioner, at Sikar Branch, issued two cheques No.20472, 20473 amounting to Rs.63,000/-, 50,000/- in favour of the respondent-complainant. On the presentation of the said cheques to the Bank at Sikar i.e. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Sikar, it were dishonoured and returned unpaid. Thereafter, the complainant received the intimation from the Punjab National Bank, Branch Sikar about the dishonour of the cheque. The cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund of the account holder. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the jurisdiction to try the case is at Sikar and not at Bikaner. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (M/s.) Vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd, 2009 1 CivCC 464wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the controversy on identical facts held that where the parties enter into transaction or the transactions were carried out or the cheque was issued and presented, the court would have territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) In para 12, 13 and 14 of the reports, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-