Judgment : Heard Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.B. Patel and Ms. Nandita Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for non-applicant No.1/ State and Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the Non-applicant Nos.2 to 4. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Three Criminal Revision Application Nos.115/2009, 116/2009 and 117/2009 were allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. By the said impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed dismissal of Summary Criminal Case Nos.470/2003, 501/2003 and 581/2003, respectively, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon. The dismissal was ordered on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the complaints. 5. The applicant herein is the original complainant and respondents are the accused in all the cases. The respondents are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents moved the trial Court for dismissal of the complaints for want of jurisdiction. The trial Court turned down the prayer of the respondents. The respondents, therefore, moved the Sessions Court which passed the impugned order. It appears that the learned Sessions Court has wrongly interpreted the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vidyabalan, reported at AIR 1999 SC 3782 and M/s. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., reported at 2009 ALL M.R.(Cri.) 280. It is noted that paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran (supra) is very vital to the resolution of the present dispute. Paragraph 14 runs as under : "14. 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." 6. It is, thus, clear that the place where the failure on the part of the drawer to make payment has occasioned is also one of the places where the prosecution can be launched. It is, thus, clear that the place where the failure on the part of the drawer to make payment has occasioned is also one of the places where the prosecution can be launched. It is abundantly clear from the complaint that the place of business of the applicant is at Shegaon. Though the cheques were drawn on the bank situated at Indore, the payment was expected at Shegaon and therefore, the Shegaon Court obviously has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaints arising out of dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent. 7. In my considered opinion, the learned Sessions Court has misdirected itself and has passed erroneous order. The said order needs to be set aside. 8. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos.115/2009, 116/2009 and 117/2009 is set aside. Consequential orders passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing complaints against other accused are also set aside. Summary Criminal Case Nos.470/2003, 501/2003 and 581/2003 be restored to file and be heard as expeditiously as possible. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 27th June, 2012. The Revision Applications stand disposed of accordingly.