Territorial Jurisdiction Upheld in Loan Case, Conviction Sustained. Revision Petition Dismissed.

The court held that the trial court at Bijapur had territorial jurisdiction to try the case based on the location of the loan transaction and relevant activities. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, noting the lack of defense evidence from the petitioner to rebut the complainant's claims. Additionally, the High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction, finding no legal errors in the lower courts' judgments. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
2. Legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence.
3. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The petitioner contended that both the trial and appellate courts at Bijapur lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case, as the main loan transaction and the cheque issuance occurred in Bagalkot. The petitioner argued that the place of issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the cheque was presented for encashment is not relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction. The complainant countered that all transactions, including the loan application, loan disbursement, and correspondence, took place at Bijapur, and the cheque was delivered and presented at Bijapur. The court examined the documents (Exs. P.1 to P.10) and found that the loan was availed from Bijapur, and all relevant transactions occurred there. The court referred to the amended provisions of the NI Act, specifically Sections 142 and 142A, which clarified that the court at the place where the cheque is delivered for collection has territorial jurisdiction. The court also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh, which supported the view that the court at Bijapur had jurisdiction. Hence, the court concluded that Bijapur court had the proper jurisdiction to try the case.

2. Legality and Correctness of the Conviction and Sentence:
The petitioner argued that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting and sentencing her, as the cheque in question was materially altered without her consent, and the contents of the cheque were filled by the respondent. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any defense evidence to rebut the complainant's case. The court emphasized that once a signed cheque is delivered, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption of liability. The court found that the petitioner failed to do so and that the evidence presented by the complainant, including the documents and witness testimony, substantiated the claim of a legally enforceable debt. The court, therefore, upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no illegality or error in the judgments of the lower courts.

3. Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by the High Court:
The court stated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only be exercised if the judgment of conviction and sentence is not in conformity with the law or suffers from illegality. The court found that the judgments of the trial and appellate courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were legally sound. The court noted that the petitioner primarily focused on the issue of jurisdiction during the trial and failed to rebut the evidence regarding the loan transaction and the cheque issuance. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the revision petition.

Order:
The revision petition is dismissed.

---