Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases depends on where the statutory ingredients arise, not mere notice issuance.

Territorial jurisdiction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on where the statutory ingredients of the offence occur, not merely on where the demand notice is issued. The offence is completed only when the cheque is dishonoured, notice is issued and received, and payment is not made within the stipulated period. Applying the criminal jurisdiction rules under the Code of Criminal Procedure, jurisdiction ordinarily lies where the offence is committed. On the stated facts, the cheque was issued, presented, and dishonoured at Chandigarh, and the complaint did not establish presentation at Delhi. The Delhi courts therefore had no territorial jurisdiction; jurisdiction lay at Chandigarh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the issuance of notice from Delhi, when the cheque was issued, presented, and dishonoured at Chandigarh and the parties carried on business there.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises only when the statutory ingredients and proviso are satisfied. The offence is complete only on dishonour of the cheque, issuance of notice, and failure to pay within the stipulated period after receipt of notice. The statutory scheme requires communication and receipt of notice; mere issuance of notice from a particular place does not itself create jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is governed by Sections 177 to 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and ordinarily lies where the offence is committed. On the facts, the cheque was issued, presented, and dishonoured at Chandigarh, and the complaint did not show presentation at Delhi. The complainant's unilateral act of sending notice from Delhi could not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi court.

Conclusion: The Delhi courts had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; the jurisdiction lay at Chandigarh.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction is determined by where the statutory components of the offence occur, and mere issuance of the demand notice from a place does not confer jurisdiction unless the notice is received there and the cause of action otherwise arises within that local area.

---