How to determine jurisdiction of court in case of dishonour

The  order   impugned is  mainly  assailed with  contention
that   the   learned   Magistrate   has   wrongly   refused   to   exercise   the
jurisdiction vested in him by law as well as pursuant to order passed by
Apex   Court.   By   referring   the   printed   endorsement   on   cheques   in
question, the learned Counsel submitted that though the cheques   in
question are drawn from account of respondent No. 2 with Bank of
India, Branch at Angol Road, Belgaum, Karnataka, the cheques are
payable from all the branches of Bank of India within the Country.  It
is,   therefore,   contended   that   as   the   cheques   were   presented   for
realization and encashment to Bank of India, Branch at Borivali, and
same were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of
respondents No. 2, the said Branch of Bank of India can very well be

treated as Drawee Bank and the presentation of the complaint was fully
justified.  
6. In my view, the contention raised by learned Counsel for
the applicant to decide the correctness of the order passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate requires no consideration for the sole reason
that, pending disposal of this application, the Government of India has
issued the Ordinance on dt. 15/6/2015.  By the ordinance issued, the
Government of India has amended the provisions of NI Act, 1881 with
immediate   effect.     The   relevant   provisions   of   the   Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 read as under : ­
3. In the principal Act, section 142 shall be numbered as subsection
(1) thereof and  after sub­section (1) as so numbered, the
following sub­section shall be inserted, namely:—
“(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into
and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an
account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in
due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is
situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee
or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the
branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the
account, is situated.
Explanation.—   For   the   purposes   of   clause   (a),   where   a
cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the
payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to

have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or
holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.”.
4. In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section
shall be inserted,    namely:—
‘‘142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal   Procedure,   1973   or   any   judgment,   decree,   order   or
directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which
were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to
it,   before   the   commencement   of   the   Negotiable   Instruments
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court
having jurisdiction under sub­section (2) of section 142 as if that
sub­section had been in force at all material times. 
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­section   (2)   of
section 142 or sub­section (1), where the payee or the holder in due
course,   as   the   case   may   be,   has   filed   a   complaint   against   the
drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under subsection
(2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that
court under sub­section (1), and such complaint is pending in that
court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against
the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of
whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for
payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
 In view of the above mentioned amendment to Section 142
of NI Act, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and complaint
needs to be restored to the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court,
Borivali,   Mumbai. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 982 OF 2014
Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.,

VERSUS
 State of Maharashtra

CORAM  : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. 

PRONOUNCED ON : 21/07/2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2490

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/07/how-to-determine-jurisdiction-of-court_17.html