Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour complaints follows the presenting branch; Sandur court was treated as lacking jurisdiction.

Section 138 NI Act territorial jurisdiction was governed by the amended Sections 142(2) and 142A, read with Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, which place jurisdiction with the court where the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's bank account branch. Applied to the facts discussed, presentation and dishonour through the Hospet branch meant the complaint was required to be tried by the JMFC at Hospet. The parties' residence at Sandur did not override the statutory jurisdictional rule, and the article states that the Sandur Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, so the concurrent conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable before the Sandur Court despite the cheque having been presented and dishonoured through the Hospet branch, and whether the concurrent conviction suffered from want of territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint was filed and the trial and appeal were concluded before the 2015 amendment, but Sections 142(2) and 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were inserted to confer jurisdiction on the court where the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's bank account branch and to validate pending and transferred cases. The amended provisions, read with the decision in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, were applied to hold that the court having jurisdiction is the one where the cheque was presented for collection. The fact that both parties were residing at Sandur did not displace the statutory jurisdictional rule under the amended Act.

Conclusion: The Sandur Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the complaint ought to have been tried by the JMFC at Hospet. The concurrent findings and conviction were set aside in favour of the revision petitioner.

---