Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases lies where payment default occurs after notice, not where notice is merely issued.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction depends on where the legally relevant cause of action arises, especially the drawer's failure to make payment after receipt of statutory notice. Mere issuance of notice from another place does not by itself confer jurisdiction if the cheque was issued, presented, dishonoured, and the notice was received elsewhere. Applying that principle, the Aurangabad forum was held to lack jurisdiction because the entire transaction and default were connected with Nagpur, and the complaint was therefore liable to be pursued before the competent court there.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable at Aurangabad on the basis of the issuance of notice from that place, when the cheque was issued, presented, dishonoured and the parties were all located at Nagpur.

Analysis: The place of jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 is determined by the constituent facts of the offence and, in particular, by the place where the drawer fails to make payment after receipt of the statutory notice. Mere issuance of notice from Aurangabad did not create a cause of action there when the notice was received at Nagpur and the cheque transaction, presentation, dishonour and default all arose at Nagpur. The Court applied the settled principle that the complaint must be filed where the legally relevant cause of action arose and that convenience of trial also supported that forum.

Conclusion: The Aurangabad court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with liberty to the complainant to proceed at Nagpur.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded and the complaint was set aside on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the complainant free to institute proceedings before the competent court at Nagpur.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction lies where the legally relevant cause of action arises, namely where the drawer fails to make payment after statutory notice, and the mere issuance of notice from another place does not confer jurisdiction.

---