2017 (6) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and taken cognizance originally before the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, by allotting C.C.No.1560 of 2009 and on transfer, renumbered before the learned XIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, as C.C.No.195 of 2011. It was while pending, the same was returned by detailed order dated 04.07.2013, which is now impugned and the same is after completion of trial and in the course of hearing arguments saying either the Court, which entertained the private complaint by taking cognizance and the Court, which deals with on transfer have no jurisdiction, for the place, where the complainant presented the cheque that was returned dishonoured does not cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it was held even the cheque presented by the complainant in his bank for collection, gives jurisdiction from part of cause of action arisen therein. In fact, subsequent to the said expression in Escorts Limited (supra), dated 17.09.2013, the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra 2014(3) ALT Criminal 129 observed that it is only in the accused bank, where the cheque is presented gives jurisdiction and not merely because it is presented at the convenience of the complainant at the collecting bank. 6. To settle the controversy, in fact, by Ordinance 6 of 2015, Section 142 of the Act is amended and Section 142(A) of additionally incorporated and the Ordinance ripen into regular amended Act of 2015. 7. As per the ....