JUDGMENT Surya Kumar Tiwari, J. This petition has been filed against the order dated 16th February, 1996 passed by Sri B. Mukherjee, Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta, in case No. C/575/95. 2.The opposite party No.2, in whose favour the petitioner had issued four cheques for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-, filed a complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the court below. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that since the branch of the United Bank of India, on which the alleged cheques were drawn, was situated in Mayurbhanj (Orissa), the Calcutta court has no jurisdiction. The Learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the contention. Hence this petition. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Associated Transport Company vs. P.S.R. Murti, 97 CWN, 111, wherein it has been laid down that the Court which is situated at the place where the demand notice is served on the accused or the place where the payee bank is situated alone has jurisdiction to try the case. Section 142 runs as follows: "142. Cognizance of offence.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138; (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138". 4. Section 142(b) clearly provides that a complaint under s. 138 can only be filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The word 'Cause of action' clearly means a bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove in order to get a decree or a desired order or the defendant/opposite party must prove in order to get out of the liability. In civil law the principle of law is that debtor must follow the creditor. The word 'Cause of action' clearly means a bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove in order to get a decree or a desired order or the defendant/opposite party must prove in order to get out of the liability. In civil law the principle of law is that debtor must follow the creditor. After receiving a notice prescribed in proviso (b) to s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the drawer of the cheque is bound to make payment to the drawee of the cheque within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of payment, failing which he is liable to be punished under s. 138 ibid. Naturally payment has to be made at the place where the drawee of the cheques resides. It, therefore, cannot be said that the place where the drawee resides, no part of the cause of action accrues. The offence is complete only when the debtor fails to repay the amount within fifteen days to the creditor. Since the cheques were issued in favour of the complainant, whose registered office is at Calcutta, it can certainly be held that a part of cause of action accrued at Calcutta. Hence the Calcutta court has jurisdiction. 5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The stay is vacated. Provisional application dismissed.