( 1 ) THIS Revisional application is directed against the order dated 12. 06. 2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 1408 of 2006 rejecting the petition of the defence/ petitioner challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court for trial of the case for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. ( 2 ) MR. Dipankar Dhar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that each and every part of action for constituting the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, took place beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, which took cognizance of the offence. According to him a cheque of Rs. 20,586/- was issued by the petitioner/ accused in favour of the respondent No. 1, ICICI Bank to defray a loan granted by the said bank which was presented in another branch of the said bank and was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of insufficiency of fund when the respondent No. 1 sent an Advocate's letter to the accused/ petitioner demanding payment of the cheque amount which the petitioner failed to comply with. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case which invites this Court to drive upon for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the learned Court below to entertain such petition of complaint, can be summarized as follows : -The cheque was issued by the drawer Subrata Munsi for an amount of Rs. 20,586/- drawn upon his Bank that is ICICI Bank Limited, Bhawanipore branch situated at 1-A, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Kolkata 700 020 beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Metropolitan magistrate that is the trial Court. The cheque was presented by the said bank to the ICICI Bank at 3a Gurusaday Road, Kolkata 700 019 for encashment on 17th January, 2006. But the cheque was dishonoured by the ICICI Bank, Bhawanipore Branch for insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Both these Banks are situated beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Court below. ( 4 ) AFTER the cheque was dishonoured, Pradip Chakraborty, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, ICICI Bank sent a notice of demand to the accused/petitioner Subrata Munsi asking him to pay the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter to his client bank directly, failing which, it was further stated, that legal action would be taken against him. Such letter of demand dated 25th January, 2006 required under Section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act was addressed to the present petitioner at his residence at 81, Jhowtala Road, Calcutta 700 017 and also at 13 Camac Street, Rajkamal Apartment, Kolkata- 7 00 017. Out of the said two addresses 81, Jhowtala Road, Calcutta-17 is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the address of Camac street is within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. But there is nothing on record to show that the said letter of demand was sent to the address at camac Street or received by the addressee at such address within the jurisdiction of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The copy of the document sent to the accused/petitioner at his address 81, Jhowtala road outside the jurisdiction of the Court has been annexed with the petition. The Annexure 'b' is the reply dated 10th February, 2006 by Mr. Dipankar dhar, learned Advocate, Calcutta High Court sent to Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, learned Advocate at his address 10, Kiran Sankar Roy Road. Calcutta denying the petitioner's liability of payment. ( 5 ) UPON failure of the petitioner to pay such cheque amount as demanded the respondent No. 1 Bank has filed this complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Metropolitan magistrate, Calcutta who took cognizance of the matter. But at the time of taking plea the accused that is the present petitioner took up the plea that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Learned metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order dated 12. 06. 2006 overruled the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the demand of payment was made from within the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station that is within the local jurisdiction of the Court. Such order of learned Magistrate is under challenged in this Court. ( 6 ) MR. 06. 2006 overruled the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the demand of payment was made from within the jurisdiction of the Hare Street Police Station that is within the local jurisdiction of the Court. Such order of learned Magistrate is under challenged in this Court. ( 6 ) MR. Dipankar Dhar learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try this case or to take cognizance of the offence alleged has relied upon the decision reported in 2006 Cr LJ, Bombay, 3704 (Laxmi Travels, Nagpur v. G. E. Countrywide Consumer and Anr.) and has contended that no part of the acts for constituting the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act took place within the jurisdiction of the Court and that learned magistrate ought to have rejected the petition of complaint refusing to take cognizance of the offence alleged. ( 7 ) MR. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1, ICICI Bank Limited cited the decision reported in 2000 C cr LR (SC) 94 (K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhy Balan and Anr.) which was also relied upon and discussed in the said judgment of the learned Single judge of Bombay High Court. Mr. Ganguly has contended that at least one of the Acts for constituting the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act that is 'giving notice of demand' required by the mandatory provision under Section 138 (b) of the said Act took place within, to be more specific, the notice was issued from within the jurisdiction of the learned court below and accordingly the learned trial Court had every territorial jurisdiction to try the case. ( 8 ) THUS, it appears that the controversy between the Advocates of both sides centers round the interpretation of the decision reported in 2000 c Cr LR (SC) 94 (supra ). In the said decision Hon'ble the Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 that "the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. In the said decision Hon'ble the Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 that "the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. " ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that learned court below has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence or to try the case in respect of the components mentioned in item nos. 1-3 and 5. It may be mentioned in this connection that the notice of demand does not mention the specific place demanding the payment of the cheque amount rather it demands the payment to the client directly obviously at 3a Gurusaday Road. ( 10 ) MR. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the term giving notice in writing to the drawer/accused includes issuance of notice of demand which took place at Kiran Sankar roy Road giving rise to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. ( 11 ) HON'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the matter in paragraph 18 of the said decision "it is, therefore, clear that "giving notice" in the context is not the same as receipt of notice. Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment. It is for the payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address. " ( 12 ) UPON such view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the place of issuance of notice is also to be considered for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court along with the place of receipt of such notice. The notice of demand dated 25th January, 2006 issued by Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of his client the respondent No. 1 having its office beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, from 10, Kiran Sankar Roy road, Calcutta - 700 001 which is within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below. The notice of demand dated 25th January, 2006 issued by Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of his client the respondent No. 1 having its office beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, from 10, Kiran Sankar Roy road, Calcutta - 700 001 which is within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below. According to learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 /complainant this very fact of issuance of notice from within the jurisdiction of the Court below gives the jurisdiction to the said Court to try the case after taking cognizance. ( 13 ) BUT the said contention of Mr. Ganguly, gives rise to an absurd proposition. It cannot be ignored that learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1 issued notice of demand in the representative capacity and on behalf of his client whose office is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The address of the learned Advocate issuing demand notice on behalf of his client is immaterial. The address of his client is material and it is to be deemed that such notice has been issued by such client through his Advocate. If the proposition suggested by Mr. Ganguly is accepted then an absurd proposition regarding territorial jurisdiction is bound to crop up. For example, if in an alleged offence committed at Calcutta, the client at Calcutta chooses an advocate residing at Delhi for issuance of demand notice then the case will be easily shifted to the jurisdiction of any competent Court in Delhi far off from Calcutta, although, the notice is addressed to the alleged wrongdoer at Calcutta. By that way the jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence will be shifted only upon the choice of the complainant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. ( 14 ) THUS, considering all such facts and circumstances, I am of the view that learned Court below erred in holding that the case was within the jurisdiction of the said Court and it was well within its jurisdiction to take cognizance of or to try the said case under Section 138 of the Negotiable instrument Act. The revisional application is accordingly allowed without costs. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 12. 06. The revisional application is accordingly allowed without costs. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 12. 06. 2006 passed by learned 10th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C1408/ 2006 is set aside and learned Court below ought to have held that the case was not within his jurisdiction and ought to have either rejected the petition of complaint or to return the same to complainant for filing in the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, considering that there was a bonafide mistake in choosing the jurisdiction of the Court, learned Court below is directed to return the Vakalatnama and the petition of complaint to the filing advocate or the complainant for filing the case in the suitable Court of competent jurisdiction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the petition of complaint. Be it made clear that in doing so the question of limitation will not stand as a bar.