Territorial jurisdiction under cheque dishonour law shifts to the payee's account branch after the statutory amendment.

The territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution depends on the amended Section 142(2) and Section 142A, under which a cheque sent for collection through the payee's account is deemed presented at the branch where that account is maintained. Applying that rule, the Court found that the cheques were linked to the Calcutta branch account, so presentation in Chennai did not confer jurisdiction on the Chennai court. As a result, the Chennai court could not take cognizance and the complaint was liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be quashed on the ground that the Chennai court lacked territorial jurisdiction after the amendment to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The jurisdictional rule governing prosecutions under Section 138 was altered by the amendment to Section 142(2) and the insertion of Section 142A. Under the amended scheme, a cheque delivered for collection through the payee's account is deemed to have been presented at the branch where the payee maintains the account, and jurisdiction lies with the court having local jurisdiction over that branch. On the facts, the cheques were issued in connection with the Calcutta branch account, and their presentation at Chennai did not create jurisdiction in Chennai because the presentation was deemed to have been made at Calcutta. The Court therefore held that the Chennai court could not take cognizance.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be tried by the Chennai court and the proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---