Sunil Kumar Guin, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 25-6-1991, in Case No. C/1142 of 1991 whereby he held that as the alleged offence was not committed within the local jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Court') he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint and directed the same to be returned to the filing Advocate.
(2.) The petitioner-complainant filed a petition of complaint before the said Court on the allegations that the accused opposite parties committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The relevant facts, as disclosed in the petition of complaint, are as follows : The Accused No. 1 M/s. Khan Palchoudhury and Company (P) Ltd., is a private company having their office at 71/A, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. Hare Street, Calcutta-1, lying within the local jurisdiction of the said Court and the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the said company. The petitioner is a proprietor of Jha Iron and Steel Company having his place of business at 36, Asutosh Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, lying outside the local jurisdiction of the said Court. In course of business transactions the accused issued three cheque, dated 3-5-1995, 9-5-1991 and 10-5-1991 for Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 8,164-75, respectively in favour of the petitioner complainant drawn on Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Kadamtola Branch, Howrah, lying outside the local jurisdiction of the said Court. The cheques were deposited by the complainant with his banker at Howrah but the same were returned by the Bank unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund under the Banker's Memo, received by the complainant on 13-5-1991. Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice which was received by the accused persons at their official address lying within the local jurisdiction of the said Court. As the accused failed to pay the amount to the complaint within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, the complainant filed the instant petition of complaint against the accused persons alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. After recording the statement of the complainant, a doubt arose in the mind of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as to whether the said Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complainant and thereafter on hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the complainant, he held that the first paragraph of Section 138 of the Act indicated clearly what, constituted an offence and that the proviso to the aforesaid section only deals with the entitlement of the complainant to prosecute a defaulter before a competent Court of law. He has further held that the offence under Section 138 regarding dishouour of cheques for insufficiency of fund in the account was completed as soon as the cheques were returned unpaid by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of the fund etc. As the cheques were dishonoured by the bank lying outside the local jurisdiction of the said Court, the said Court had no local jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition of complaint. On these findings, he directed the return the petition of complaint to the filing Advocate.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has filed the instant revisional application challenging the legality and propriety of the said order. Mr. Mitra, led by Mr. Bhose, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner. Complainant has argued that the learned Judge erred in holding that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was completed as soon as the cheques were returned unpaid by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of fund etc. and that he has committed an error in holding that the said Court had no local jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition of complaint and also erred in directing return of the petition of complaint to the filing Advocate. He has also argued that offence under Section 138 is completed only on the failure on the part of the drawer of the cheque to make payment within the period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice as mentioned in Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 and that as this failure or omission to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheques took place within the local jurisdiction of the said Court the said Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition of complaint. In this connection he has also referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madras Forging's & Allied Industries (C.B.C.) Ltd. v. Surresh Chandra 2nd another, reported in 1990 C.Cr.LR (Cal) 145.;