ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Original Complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Camp at Kalol in Criminal Case No.7 of 2009 dated 17.6.2013 recording the acquittal on the grounds stated in the Appeal. 2. As per the order passed earlier dated 22.8.2013, the Appeal has been Admitted, and as per the order dated 21.1.2014, Criminal Misc. Application No. 16675 of 2013 (for fixing date of hearing) has been allowed referring to the issue raised in the present Criminal Appeal regarding the jurisdiction. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri K.A. Vyas for the Appellant / Original Complainant and learned APP Shri H.K.Patel for Respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. Though served, no one has appeared for Respondent No.2-Original Accused. 4. Learned Advocate Shri K.A.Vyas has referred to the judgment regarding the reasons for the findings and the conclusion arrived at with regard to the issue of jurisdiction. However, he has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 2634 – Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma referring to paragraph 7. 5. Learned APP Shri H.K.Patel has also fairly stated that the matter could be remanded in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. 6. The court below has committed an error while deciding the aspect of jurisdiction and it is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 2634 . It has also been observed: “The locality where the Bank (which dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to determine the place of offence. It must be remembered that offence under Section 138 would not be completed with the dishonour of the cheque. It attains completion only with the failure of the drawer of the cheque to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. .................. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business.” 7. .................. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business.” 7. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No.7 of 2009 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Camp at Kalol dated 17.6.2013, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside with a direction that the Criminal Case No. 7 of 2009 is remanded back to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Camp at Kalol, to decide afresh in accordance with law on merits after providing an opportunity to both the sides. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to return the R&P to the trial court forthwith. 9. It goes without saying that the trial court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the aforesaid Criminal Case No.7 of 2009 preferably within a period of six months.