JUDGMENT This is complainants' appeal from Order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda (trial Magistrate, for short) in Criminal Case No.582/OA/2006/C holding that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. 2. The said complaint is in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 3. The complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Worli, Mumbai and various divisions including Fan and Electrical Division at Bethoda, Ponda Goa. The accused was the authorized dealer of the complainant for various ranges of electrical items. The accused had from time to time placed orders with the complainant and the complainant had sold, supplied and delivered to the accused various electrical items. According to the complainant, the accused had accepted the delivery of the same without raising any dispute as to its quality and/or quantity thereof and the complainant thereafter had raised, issued and delivered to the accused their invoices, which were accepted by the accused, and the complainant was assured that the amount there under will be paid very shortly. The complainant has alleged that after a number of requests and reminders being made by the complainant, the accused effected various part payments from time to time and towards the balance payment, the accused issued in favour of the complainant a cheque No. 318590 duly signed & filled in, except the amount in figures and words and the date, as the accused was not aware of the exact amount due and payable by him to the complainant on the day when he issued the said cheque. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that the accused requested the sales representative of the complainant to fill the amount after adjusting various credit notes etc. and had assured that the said cheque will be honoured on its presentation. The said cheque was drawn on C. K. P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thane. It is submitted by the complainant that later on the amount of Rs. 1,05,892.82 paise was found legally due and payable by the accused to the complainant and therefore the blanks in the said cheque were filled in. The cheque was presented by the complainant to their bankers namely ICICI Bank Ltd., Ponda Branch for realization. The said cheque was returned unpaid on 20/07/2006. 1,05,892.82 paise was found legally due and payable by the accused to the complainant and therefore the blanks in the said cheque were filled in. The cheque was presented by the complainant to their bankers namely ICICI Bank Ltd., Ponda Branch for realization. The said cheque was returned unpaid on 20/07/2006. A legal notice was therefore sent from Ponda by the complainant who is dated 26/07/2006 and the same was received by the accused at Thane on 03/08/2006. The accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount which was demanded and replied the said notice by letter dated 09/08/2006. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint on 04/09/2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda, Goa, under section 138 of the Act. 4. Process was issued by the trial Magistrate against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation that was explained to him. The complainant adduced its evidence & tendered the affidavit-in-evidence of its power of attorney holder. He was cross-examined. He has produced various documents on record. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the case was pending for defence evidence, the accused filed an application dated 20/03/2009 thereby challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. 5. The contention of the accused was that the the cheque in question was drawn on C. K. P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gokhale Road, Thane and was handed over to the complainant at its office at Worli and the payment against the said cheque was stopped at Thane & therefore the Trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The accused prayed that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Criminal W. P. No. 497 of 2008 and Criminal Revision Application Nos. 250 and 251 of 2007 (DiptiKumar Monhanty v/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. and Kitchen Appliances (India) Ltd. v/s. Mrs. Manisha Choudhary). 6. The learned trial Magistrate, after hearing the parties on the said application, held that the transaction pertaining to the said cheque took place out side the jurisdiction of his Court. He held that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Manisha Choudhary). 6. The learned trial Magistrate, after hearing the parties on the said application, held that the transaction pertaining to the said cheque took place out side the jurisdiction of his Court. He held that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The trial Magistrate further held that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has no powers to direct transfer of cases from one Court to another. He therefore dismissed the same. 7. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the complainant, at the outset, urged that the point of territorial jurisdiction could not have been decided by the trial Magistrate independently. He pointed out that the evidence on behalf of the complainant was recorded; the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. was recorded; the copy of the affidavit-in-evidence of the accused was furnished to the counsel for the complainant and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the accused. Therefore, according to the counsel, the trial Magistrate had to look into the evidence and decide the case on merits. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the accused, after receiving summons had not raised the question of jurisdiction and after completion of evidence, he could not have raised the said point. Without prejudice to his contention, as above, he then submitted that the learned trial Magistrate could not have dismissed the case and had to return the complaint to the complainant in order to file it before the Court having jurisdiction. He pointed out that a cross cheque was issued to the complainant & this cheque was presented for encashment in the Bank of the complainant at Ponda and it was dishonoured at Ponda. He contended that the offence arises because the account of the complainant has not been credited. The learned senior counsel submitted that the complainant would have got the money at the place where the cheque was presented and the interest of the complainant was in fact that its account is credited with the cheque amount. According to Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, the fact that the banker of the complainant demands the cheque amount from the drawee bank which is at Thane, has nothing to do with the complainant. He also pointed out that the legal notice dated 26/07/2006 was issued from Ponda. According to Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, the fact that the banker of the complainant demands the cheque amount from the drawee bank which is at Thane, has nothing to do with the complainant. He also pointed out that the legal notice dated 26/07/2006 was issued from Ponda. He further argued that the goods were supplied to the accused from Bethoda, Ponda; the invoices have been raised from Ponda; the cheque has been presented & dishonoured at Ponda and the legal notice has been issued from Ponda. He contended that the dishonour of the cheque may not give the complainant the cause of action but the intimation given to him by the ICICI Bank, Ponda about the dishonour, gives him the cause of action. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon “PreethaS. Babu of District Ernakulam versus Voltas Limited & another” [2010(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 744], in support of his contention that since the cheque was presented and dishonoured at Ponda, the complaint could have been filed there. He relied upon “Shamshad Begum(Smt) Vs. B. Mohammed” [2000(5) Bom.C.R. 178(S.C.)] & argued that since the legal notice dated 26/7/2006 was sent from Ponda, the Ponda Court has jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel for the accused, argued that the case of “Preetha S. Babu” (supra) was a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. He further argued that the learned Single Judge dealing with the present Criminal Appeal had made a reference regarding conflicting views & the Division Bench by Judgment dated 29/08/2011 has decided the said reference and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Preetha S. Babu” (supra), that the collecting bank has jurisdiction, has not been accepted by the Division (Reference) Bench. He further contended that the place of sending of notice does not give Jurisdiction, but the place of receipt of the notice is relevant. According to the learned counsel, the facts of this case are exactly similar to the case of “Diptikumar Mohanti Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.” relied upon by the trial Magistrate. He therefore urged that the impugned order insofar as it holds that the Ponda Court has no territorial Jurisdiction is proper. According to the learned counsel, the facts of this case are exactly similar to the case of “Diptikumar Mohanti Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.” relied upon by the trial Magistrate. He therefore urged that the impugned order insofar as it holds that the Ponda Court has no territorial Jurisdiction is proper. He fairly agreed that the complaint could not have been dismissed on that ground but the same should have been returned to the complainant for filing the same in Court having jurisdiction. Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel, has relied upon various cases namely: 1. K. Bhaskaran V/s. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan ( AIR 1999 SC 3762 ) 2. Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. V/s. Raghupati Leasing and Finance Ltd. and another [2002 (4) AllMR (Journal) 22] 3. Vuppala Venkata Nageshvar Roa V/s. Tulluri Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and anr. [2005 AllMR(Cri) 65] 4. Laxmi Travels V/s. G. E. Countrywide Consumer [2006 AllMR(Cri) 2482] 5. AhujaNandkishore Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. [ 2006 (6) AIR Bom. R 201] 6. NutanDamodar Prabhu and anr. V/s. Ravindra Vassant Kenkre and anr. [ Cri. W. P. No. 34/07] 7. Damodar S. Prabhu V/s. Balkrishna R. Naik [Cri. W. P. No. 7/08] 8. M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. V/s. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. [ 2009(1) AllMR 479] 9. Dipti Kumar Mohanty V/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. [Cri. W. P. No. 497/08] 10. Shah and Modi Developers V/s. State of Maharashtra [2009 AllMR(Cri) 3038] 11. Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Shivam Traders [Cri. Rev. Appl. 7/09] 12. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. V/s. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. [ AIR 2000 SC 954 ] 13. Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. V/s. Jayaswals NECO Ltd. [ AIR 2001 SC 1161 ]" 9. I have perused the entire records and proceedings in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and I have also gone through all the judgments which have been cited by them. 10. In the case of “K. Bhaskaran”(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: “The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. 10. In the case of “K. Bhaskaran”(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: “The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. 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. It is not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for completion of the offence under S. 138 of the Act. Referring to section 178(d) of Code it is clear that if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five different local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under S. 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under section 138 of the Act.” 11. The complainant has its registered office at Worli, Mumbai and the accused has his shop at Thane (West). The complainant may have its Fan and Electrical division at Bethoda, Ponda Goa, however, the complainant has its divisions at various other places also. The accused has his establishment only at Thane(West) and has nothing at Goa. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has its Depot at Thane, Bhiwandi. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the complainant that the goods were supplied to the accused from Ponda and the invoices were also raised from Ponda does not appear to be true. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has its Depot at Thane, Bhiwandi. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the complainant that the goods were supplied to the accused from Ponda and the invoices were also raised from Ponda does not appear to be true. Neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit-in-evidence of the power of attorney holder, the complainant has stated that the goods were supplied from Ponda or the invoices were raised at Ponda. Admittedly, as stated by the attorney of the complainant, in his cross examination, the cheque was issued and delivered to the complainant at Mumbai. Admittedly, as stated by the said attorney, the complainant has bank account at Mumbai. The invoices-cum-challans at Exhibit 33-colly show that they are issued from Mumbai branch. The letter dated 14/06/2006 ( Exhibit 37-colly) demanding Rs.1,06,000/- from the accused has been sent by the complainant, from Mumbai, to the accused at Thane(west), as is evident from the said letter and the postal receipt, which has the address of Bhandup West Post Office. The learned trial Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that in the present case, there was no delivery of goods and/or any part of transaction between the two parties, which has taken place within the jurisdiction of his Court. The trial Magistrate has therefore held that only because the complainant has a branch in Goa, it does not become a good ground to drag the accused to Goa. 12. When this appeal came for final hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court (U. D. Salvi, J), he found that there was conflict in view taken by him in the case of “Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Shivam Traders and others” (Criminal Revision Application no. 7 of 2009 decided on 17/11/2009) and view taken up by V. R. Kingaonkar,J sitting at Aurangabad Bench, in the case of “Dipti Kumar Mohanty v/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.” (Criminal Writ Petition No. 497 of 2008) decided on 17/02/2009 on the material issue as to whether the Court in whose jurisdiction the payee or holder in due course of cheque ordinarily resides or carries on business or works for gain or for that matter has a branch office shall have jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence under Section 138 of the Act or nor. The matter was therefore referred to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted the Division Bench for deciding the issue raised by the Court (Coram: U. D. Salvi, J.). By judgment dated 29/08/2011, the Division Bench of this Court answered the said reference and ordered that the matter be placed before the Single Judge for decision in accordance with law. It has been held as follows: “14. In our view, the decision of the learned Single Judge (U. D. Salvi, J) in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s M/s Shivan Traders ( supra ) in so far as it holds “ that item no.5 in para 14 of K. Bhaskaran's case would enable the payee or the holder of the cheque to prosecute the drawer at any of the places, where he either resides or carries on business or works for gain” does not lay down the correct law & stands overruled. The place where a civil suit can be filed for recovery of money (due on cheque) in view of Section 20 of the CPC, is not relevant for determining jurisdiction of the magistrate to entertain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The jurisdiction of the magistrate would necessarily depend only upon Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. If the place where one of the several acts which together constitute an offence also happens to be a place where the cause of action for filing of a suit has arisen or where the accused resides that may be pure coincidence and in which case both the civil suit as well as the prosecution can be lodged before the civil court and the magistrate having jurisdiction at that place. In a given case the civil court may have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for recovery of money due on negotiable instrument based upon the place of residence of the defendant or place of accrual of cause of action but that would not be relevant for the purpose of determining of the jurisdiction of the magistrate to try the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.” 13. I therefore hold that merely because the complainant has fan and electrical division at Bethoda, Ponda, where nothing has happened concerning the accused, Ponda Court would not have territorial jurisdiction on this ground. 14. I therefore hold that merely because the complainant has fan and electrical division at Bethoda, Ponda, where nothing has happened concerning the accused, Ponda Court would not have territorial jurisdiction on this ground. 14. Indisputably, the signed cheque was issued by the accused and delivered to the complainant at Worli, Mumbai and hence it was drawn at Mumbai. Thus, the act of drawing of the cheque also does not give jurisdiction to the Ponda Court. 15. It is true that legal notice dated 26/07/2006 has been sent by the learned Advocate for complainant to the accused from Ponda address. However, that cannot mean that it was given to the accused at Ponda. The said notice has been sent to Thane (West) at the address of the accused and has been received by the accused at the said Thane address and further the accused had sent reply to the said notice through his Advocate from Thane. In the case of “M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd.”(supra), [2009 (1) AllMR 479], the Hon'ble Supreme has Court held as follows : "14. It is one thing to say that sending of a notice is one of the ingredients for maintaining the complaint but it is another thing to say that dishonour of a cheque by itself constitutes an offence. For the purpose of proving its case that the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the ingredients thereof are required to be proved. What would constitute an offence is stated in the main provision. The proviso appended thereto, however, imposes certain further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the ingredients for constitution of the offence laid down in the provisos (a), (b) and (c) appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act intended to be applied in favour of the accused, there cannot be any doubt that receipt of a notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of action for filing a complaint as it is only on receipt of the notice the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) & (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would." 16. Clauses (b) & (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would." 16. Since the notice in the present case was received by the accused at Thane, in view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ponda Court cannot be said to have jurisdiction on the ground that the said notice was sent from Ponda. 17. The main question which arises for consideration, in the present case, is whether the cheque was presented and dishonoured at Ponda and whether this gives the jurisdiction to the trial Magistrate to try the offence. 18. Admittedly, the said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant to its banker namely ICICI Bank Ltd., Ponda, Branch. The said cheque is a cross cheque. However, it is not drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Ponda branch but on the C.K.P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Thane (West). The said cheque could have been presented for encashment to any bank anywhere in India wherever the complainant has its account. But the payment or the non payment of cheque or the reason for non payment can occur only at one bank that is C.K.P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, the ICICI Bank Ltd. had to send the said cheque to the C.K.P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Thane, for clearance. It is the said C.K.P. Co-Operative Bank which has issued the cheque return memo on the ground that payment is stopped by the drawer. Once the drawer's Bank, on which the cheque is drawn, refuses payment, the Bank at which the cheque has been presented also cannot credit the account of the drawee (holder of the cheque). Therefore, the ICICi Bank, Ponda, by intimation dated 20/7/06 (Exhibit 36-colly), has informed the complainant that the cheque has been returned unpaid for reason No. 28 i. e. “ Payment stopped by drawer”. Hence, presentation as well as dishonour of the cheque, in thepresent case, has taken place at Ponda. 19. Therefore, the ICICi Bank, Ponda, by intimation dated 20/7/06 (Exhibit 36-colly), has informed the complainant that the cheque has been returned unpaid for reason No. 28 i. e. “ Payment stopped by drawer”. Hence, presentation as well as dishonour of the cheque, in thepresent case, has taken place at Ponda. 19. In the case of “Vuppala Venkata Nageshwara Rao”(supra), the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in 'K. Bhaskaran”, the Apex Court has held that the Courts in whose jurisdiction the dishonoured cheque was presented for payment or the place where the cheque was returned unpaid by the drawee bank etc., would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 138 of the Act. 20. In the case of “Preetha S. Babu” (supra), the complainant's registered office was at Mumbai. The cheque was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Angamaly Branch, Ernakulum District, Kerala. The complainant had presented the same for clearing, with their Bankers – Citibank, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. The said cheque was returned unpaid & dishonoured by the banker of the accused i. e. Syndicate Bank. The statutory notice was issued from Mumbai. Referring to almost all the judgments cited by both the parties, It has been held by the Division Bench of our High Court as follows : “Therefore, the cheque can be presented at the collecting bank of the payee. The collecting bank has to then send it to the drawee bank. That must be done within six months. If the cheque is dishonoured and money is not paid within 15 days of the notice, complaint can be filed at the place where the collecting bank is situated. The idea is that the cheque should reach the drawee bank within six months. It can be directly presented to it or it can be presented through the collecting bank.” 21. The Division Bench of our High Court, in the reference made by the Single Judge, in the present appeal, has held as follows: “Place No. 2: Presentation of the cheque to the bank. 4. It can be directly presented to it or it can be presented through the collecting bank.” 21. The Division Bench of our High Court, in the reference made by the Single Judge, in the present appeal, has held as follows: “Place No. 2: Presentation of the cheque to the bank. 4. The determination of the place of presentation of the cheque poses some difficulty, especially when the cheque is drawn on a bank and the branch where the accused ( drawer of the cheque ) maintains his account is situate in a city or town different than the city or town where the payee (holder ) maintains his bank account and deposits the cheque in his ( holder's ) bank for collection. The question that arises is whether the presentation of the cheque takes place in the city or town where the holder deposits the cheque for collection in his bank or the presentment takes place where the cheque is presented to the drawee bank at its branch on which it is drawn and where the drawer maintains his account. The controversy is whether the cheque is presented where the concerned branch of the drawee bank is situate or where the concerned branch of the collecting branch is situate. 5. In Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Limited V/s Jayaswals NECO Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1161 , the Supreme Court was required to consider inter alia the time period within which a cheque was required to be presented to the bank for computing the period of validity of the cheque of six months. In para 9 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed : “A combined reading of Sections 2, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee”. ( Under lining supplied ) This observation gives a clear indication that the cheque must be presented for payment to the bank on which it is drawn. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee”. ( Under lining supplied ) This observation gives a clear indication that the cheque must be presented for payment to the bank on which it is drawn. Such presentment would therefore, save and except where the cheque is payable at par at all or multiple branches of the bank on which the cheque is drawn, is effected at the branch in which the drawer of the cheque maintains his account. In this regard, further observations made by the Supreme Court in para 8 in the case of Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Limited V/s Jayaswals NECO Ltd., (supra ) also needs to be quoted, they are : “8. The use of the words “a bank” and “the bank” in the section is indicator of the intention of the Legislature. The former is indirect article and the latter is pre-fixed by direct article. If the Legislature intended to have the same meanings for “a bank” and “the bank”, there was no cause or occasion for mentioning it distinctly and differently by using two different articles. It is worth noticing that the word “ banker” in section 3 of the Act is pre-fixed by the indefinite article “a” and the word “bank” where the cheque is intended to be presented under section 138 is prefixed by the definite article “the”. The same section permits a person to issue a cheque on an account maintained by him with “a bank” and makes him liable for criminal prosecution if it is returned by “the bank” unpaid. The payment of the cheque is contemplated by “the bank” meaning thereby where the person issuing the cheque has an account. “The” is the word used before nouns, with a specifying of particularising effect opposed to the indefinite or generalising force of “a” or “an”. It determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. “The” is always mentioned to denote particular thing or a person. “The” would, therefore, refer implicitly to a specified bank and not any bank. It determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. “The” is always mentioned to denote particular thing or a person. “The” would, therefore, refer implicitly to a specified bank and not any bank. “The bank” referred to in Clause (a) to the proviso to section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee-bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued.” (Underlining supplied ) 6. Despite the clear pronunciation of the law of the Supreme Court that the expression “ the bank” referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the holder, different Courts have taken divergent views, some holding that the presentment of the cheque is made only at the drawee bank ( bank of the accused ) and others taking the view that the presentment is made at holder's bank i.e. the collecting bank where the holder deposits the cheque. In Mattathil Ouseph Ittira V/s State of Kerala and anr., 2003 Cr. L.J. 514, the cheque in question was drawn on M/s Abudabi Commerical Bank, Sharjah and was presented to Tiruvale Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. The cheque was dishonourned. The Kerala High Court held that the fact that drawee bank was outside India did not matter since the cheque was presented for encashment within the jurisdiction of the Court where the collecting bank was situate, the complaint could be filed before it. Dissenting from the view of the Kerala High Court as also of the view taken by the Andra Pradesh and Delhi High Court, a Single Judge of this Court ( R. C. Chavan, J ) in Ahuja Nandkumar Dongre V/s State of Maharashtra, 2006(6) AIR Bom. R 201, held that the cheque has to be presented to the drawee bank at the place mentioned on the cheque. The Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was merely presented for realization ( i.e. the place where the collecting bank was situate ) would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. R 201, held that the cheque has to be presented to the drawee bank at the place mentioned on the cheque. The Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was merely presented for realization ( i.e. the place where the collecting bank was situate ) would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The deicision of R. C. Chavan J, in Ahuja Nandkumar Dongre's case was followed by another Single Judge of this Court ( Kingaonkar J ) in Dipti Kumar Mohanty V/s Videocon Industries Ltd. ( MANU/MH/0120/2009). However in Shri Damodar S. Prabhu V/s Balkrishna Naik ( Criminal W. P. No.2/2008) another learned Single Judge of this Court ( R. M. S. Khandeparkar J ) observed that the view taken in Ahuja Dongre was contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran. He, therefore referred the matter to a larger bench. However, the reference did not materialize as the dispute between the parties was settled. The decision of the Single Judge in Ahuja Dongre's case came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Preetha S. Babu V/s Voltas Ltd.,2009 (3) Mah. L. J. 234 in a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside of a complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The decision of the Division Bench in this regard is equivocal. The first sentence of para 28 of the judgment in the Preetha's case indicates that the Division Bench has agreed with the view of the Single Judge in Ahuja Dongre's case that the expression “the bank” referred to in clause (a) to proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn. However, in the next sentence the Division Bench has observed that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that only the Court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situate will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and not the Court where it is presented for realization needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench in an appropriate case. Again in para 31, the Division Bench has observed : “If the cheque is dishonoured & money is not paid within 15 days of the notice, complaint can be filed at the place where collecting bank is situated”. Again in para 31, the Division Bench has observed : “If the cheque is dishonoured & money is not paid within 15 days of the notice, complaint can be filed at the place where collecting bank is situated”. The view expressed in para 31 however is not emphatic and it is clear from further observations made in para 33 of the decision which are to the following effect : “We respectfully agree with learned Single Judge when he states in Ahuja Dongre that if the Courts at the place where the cheque was presented were to have jurisdiction, drawer of the cheque would be harassed by unscrupulous litigants by presenting the cheque at a place far away from the place at which it was meant to be paid. But we must refer to the Supreme Court's observation in Harman that in such cases, it is necessary to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of the accused vis-à-vis the provisions of the Code. It is possible to urge that whereas the accused can take exemptions from appearance in the Court, the complainant runs the risk of his complaint being dismissed in his absence and, therefore, hardship caused to the complainant is more. Therefore, though we are not expressing a total voice of dissent, in our opinion, learned Single Judge's view that the words “the bank” in item no.2 of paragraph 14 of K. Bhaskaran mean the “drawee bank” needs to be referred to a larger bench in an appropriate case so that it can be more advantageously heard and decided. With respect, we feel that learned Single Judge's view that practice of presenting a cheque to the payee's or holder's own banker does not make such banker “the drawee” needs to be considered by a larger bench in the context of K. Bhaskaran. We have not given necessary direction to the Registry because for the disposal of this petition, the decision on the said issue is not necessary”. We have not given necessary direction to the Registry because for the disposal of this petition, the decision on the said issue is not necessary”. ( Underlining supplied) Since the Division Bench has held that the question whether the Court having jurisdiction over a place where “the bank” (collecting bank ) is situate, is required to be referred to a larger bench, it would not be appropriate for us to express our view on the issue and the matter would be finally decided by a larger bench when a reference is made on an appropriate occasion.” 22. The Division Bench of our High Court in the said reference, in so far as the return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, has held as follows: 8. Cheque may be presented by the holder of the cheque to the drawee bank in person if the cheque is payable to the bearer or order. However, where the cheque is crossed, it would be required to be presented by the holder to the drawee bank only through a bank for being credited to his account. Where the holder of the cheque maintains an account in the same branch of the bank on which the cheque is drawn the drawee bank would credit the account of the holder if there is available balance in the account of the drawee. In case of insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer, the drawee bank would return it to the holder in that very branch & that very place. This situation presents no difficulty as the cheque is returned to the holder at the branch on which the cheque is drawn. However, when the holder of the cheque has an account in a different bank, perhaps in a different town, he would deposit the cheque in his bank ( collecting bank). The collecting bank would then present the cheque to the drawee bank either by itself or through the network of its branches. The cheque would be presented at the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer of the cheque maintains the account. If the balance in drawee's account is adequate, the drawee bank would pay the amount of the cheque when the cheque is presented to it by the collecting bank through clearing house or through any other mechanism of payment recognised & approved by the banking system. If the balance in drawee's account is adequate, the drawee bank would pay the amount of the cheque when the cheque is presented to it by the collecting bank through clearing house or through any other mechanism of payment recognised & approved by the banking system. Where however the balance in the account of the drawer is inadequate, the drawee bank would return the cheque unpaid to the collecting bank; the cheque is returned and delivered to the collecting bank there and then or through the clearing house in the same town, in the ordinary course. When the collecting bank presents the cheque to the drawee bank, it acts an agent of the holder of the cheque and not as an agent of the drawer of the cheque. The return of the cheque by the drawee bank to the collecting bank is thus a return of the cheque to the agent of the holder of the cheque. The cheque is returned unpaid at the branch of the drawee bank on which cheque is drawn. It is, therefore, the Court which has jurisdiction over the place where the branch of the drawee bank on which cheque is drawn is situate that would have jurisdiction to inquire into and try the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.” “Place No.3 – Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank. 23. The reference made to the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the present appeal,was only on a limited point as to whether the Court in whose jurisdiction the payee or holder in due course of cheque ordinarily resides or carries on business or works for gain or for that matter has a branch office shall have jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence under section 138 of the Act or not. It is seen that the Division Bench, to which the reference was made in this appeal, has not held that the complaint cannot be filed at the place of the collecting bank. A perusal of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in “Preetha S. Babu”(supra), reveals that the Division Bench has agreed with the learned Single Judge's view in the case of “Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [2007 (1) Bom. A perusal of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in “Preetha S. Babu”(supra), reveals that the Division Bench has agreed with the learned Single Judge's view in the case of “Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [2007 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 1031], to the extent that 'the bank' referred to in Clause (a) to proviso to section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee-bank on which the cheque was drawn. But the Division Bench has observed that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case in the context of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain complaint under section 138, that the cheque has to be presented to the drawee-bank at the place mentioned in the cheque and only the Court within whose jurisdiction, the drawee bank is situated will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and not the Court at another place where it is presented for realization needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench in an appropriate case. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Division bench in the case of “Preetha S. Babu” (supra), is an authoritative pronouncement based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “K. Bhaskaran”(supra). It is an accepted rule or principle that the statement of law by a Bench is considered binding on a Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. The principle held in paragraph 31 of the Judgment in “Preetha's case is binding on this Court. Therefore I hold that since the cheque was presented and returned unpaid/dishonoured by ICICI Bank at Ponda, the Ponda Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. 24. As far as convenience of the parties and conduct of the accused is concerned, it is seen from the records that the accused, after receiving the summons from the Ponda Court, appeared & furnished the required bond with surety and even participated in the proceedings by pleading not guilty to the substance of accusation explained to him and in the part of the trial completed. The evidence of the complainant has been closed. The learned Advocate for the accused has cross-examined the power of attorney holder of the complainant. He has given his statement under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. He has furnished the copy of his affidavit-in-evidence to the learned Advocate for the complainant. The evidence of the complainant has been closed. The learned Advocate for the accused has cross-examined the power of attorney holder of the complainant. He has given his statement under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. He has furnished the copy of his affidavit-in-evidence to the learned Advocate for the complainant. All the above has been done without raising any objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. Only when the case was pending for crossexamination of the accused, he filed the application challenging the territorial Jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. Sections 177 to 188 of Cr.P.C. contain the provisions regarding the place of trial. However, section 462 of Cr. P. C. says that no proceedings in a wrong place shall be set aside unless it appears that such error has occasioned a failure of justice. Thus, without prejudice to what has been held above, the trial,even it is was held to be within a wrong territorial jurisdiction would not vitiate the same unless such error, if any, occasioned failure of justice. 25. The impugned Order, therefore is not in accordance with the settled principles of law and hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 26. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (a) The appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (c) The Criminal Case No. 582/OA/2006 is restored to the file of the trial Magistrate. (d) The trial Magistrate shall proceed with the said case from the stage at which it was pending prior to the filing of the application Exhibit 43 by the accused & shall dispose of the same in accordance with the law. (e) The disposal of the case shall be expedited. (f) The parties shall appear before the trial Magistrate on the 11th of June 2012 at 10.00 a.m.