ORDER P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 30-9-2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 364/1996. By impugned judgment, the Trial Court had rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act") holding that the Court at Baloda Bazar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute as raised by the complainant as according to the Trial Court the cause of action that arose in the instant case was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Baloda Bazar. 2. Brief facts leading to the instant case are that the respondent-Jagdish Gupta is a resident of Takhatpur and the complainant is a resident of Bhatapara. The respondent had some commercial transactions of purchase of agricultural products from the petitioner/complainant. Against the said transaction that was entered into between the parties, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 945881, dated 8-12-1995, amounting to Rs.54,500/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Barela, Distt. Bilaspur in favour of Vyas Narayan Agrawal, Bhatapara. The cheque was given by the respondent to the petitioner at Bhatapara. The said cheque issued by the respondent was presented by the petitioner at Fafadih Branch of Andhra Bank, Raipur, which in turn sent the same to the Punjab National Bank for collection. Subsequently, the petitioner was intimated at Bhatapara by his Bank that the said cheque, which was sent for collection to the Punjab National Bank has been returned back with the note that the account does not have sufficient funds. Against the said returning of the cheque on account of "insufficient funds", the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent on 11-1-1996 intimating the respondent about the returning of the cheque because of insufficient funds. 3. However, when the respondent did not take any step, the petitioner had filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Trial Court at Bhatapara, which had the territorial jurisdiction to hear cases of Bhatapara, which in turn registered the case as Criminal Case No. 364/1996. 4. 3. However, when the respondent did not take any step, the petitioner had filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Trial Court at Bhatapara, which had the territorial jurisdiction to hear cases of Bhatapara, which in turn registered the case as Criminal Case No. 364/1996. 4. After the recording of the evidences, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 30-9-2000 rejected the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that the Court at Baloda Bazar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said case instituted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the reason that the Bank, which had returned the intimation notice to the petitioner situates at Raipur and the cheque that was issued was that of Takhatpur Branch of the Punjab Rational Bank and, therefore, the Court of Baloda Bazar does not have the jurisdiction. According to the Trial Court, the two places where the cause of action has taken place is either of Takhatpur with district headquarters at Bilaspur or district headquarters at Raipur and, therefore, the Court at Baloda Bazar does not have jurisdiction and, accordingly, the Trial Court rejected the complaint of the petitioner. 5. It is this judgment dated 30-9-2000 passed by the Trial Court which has been put to challenge by petitioner/complainant in the instant petition. 6. Heard learned Counsellor the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, (1997) 7 SCC 510, dealing with the issue of jurisdiction has laid down certain broad guidelines by which it could be determine as to which Court would have territorial jurisdiction of the case initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case has categorically given five different components by which the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be established. Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on in deciding that it is at the liberty of the person in whose favour the cheque is issued to choose any one of the components from the five different localities in which there is a possibility of part of cause of action has arisen. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below:-- 14. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below:-- 14. 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. 15. It is not necessary that all the above 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 a concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:-- 178. (a)-(c) * * * (d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 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 one of these 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. 8. 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. 8. However, subsequently, the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra), was slightly diluted by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harmon Electronics Private Limited and another v. National Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720 , wherein the only improvement that has been made upon was that the place where the notice was given in writing to the drawer demanding payment of the cheque amount would not give rise to a cause of action. Applying the principles laid down in Harman Electronics case (supra), this Court also in the cases of Smt. Pushpalata Verma v. Sanjay Kumar Rajwade, 2012(4) M.P.H.T. 12 (CG), has dealt with the question of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of filing of a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In both the aforesaid judgments as regards the place where the drawer has received the cheque has been held to have the territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of filing a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 72 , has fallen back upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra), and has reiterated the context of territorial jurisdiction as per fifth component laid down in K. Bhaskaran case, i.e., failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice, thereby the place of failure to pay the amount has been clearly qualified as the place where the drawer resides or the place where the payee resides. 10. Taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, if we see the facts of the instant case, it would be evidently clear that drawing of the cheque by respondent to the petitioner was at Takhatpur, however, the cheque was drawn in favour of the petitioner residing at Bhatapara, as is evident from the perusal of the cheque itself. The cheque was presented by the petitioner at Fafadih Branch of Andhra Bank, Raipur. The cheque was presented by the petitioner at Fafadih Branch of Andhra Bank, Raipur. The returning of the cheque by the Andhra Bank to the petitioner was at Bhatapara at his address whereby the Andhra Bank officials have intimated the petitioner that the cheque, which was sent for collection to Punjab National Bank, Barela, has been returned back with a note of "insufficient funds". The said intimation was given by Andhra Bank to the petitioner at Bhatapara. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent through his lawyer at Raipur and, finally, after the issuance of the notice, the respondent failed to make the payment to the drawer who resides at Bhatapara within 15 days, which give rise the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thus, in the instant case, the petitioner had the prerogative of filing the complaint case either at Takhatpur of which district headquarters is at Bilaspur or at Baloda Bazar, which has the territorial jurisdiction in respect of hearing the cases of the area where the petitioner resides, i.e., at Bhatapara and the respondent had given the cheque to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner had the option of filing of the instant case at any of the two places and if the petitioner has chosen to file the complaint case at Baloda Bazar, the Court at Baloda Bazar had all the territorial jurisdiction to hear such case and proceed further as has been envisaged in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. 11. In view of the above, the finding arrived at by the Trial Court of not having territorial jurisdiction being not proper, the judgment dated 30-9-2000 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for proceeding further with the case from the stage of rejection of the case on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 12. It is reflected from the order-sheets of the instant case, that earlier a requisition was sent for calling the record of the Trial Court, however, it is learnt that the record of the Trial Court has been destroyed. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit paper-book before this Court so that the same can be taken as part of the record of the case in the absence of Trial Court's record of the case. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit paper-book before this Court so that the same can be taken as part of the record of the case in the absence of Trial Court's record of the case. Thus, the paper-book submitted by the petitioner shall be sent to the Trial Court so that the same can be treated as part of the records of the instant case and on the basis of which the Trial Court shall proceed further with the case. 13. It is also made clear that in case if both the parties have any other documents in respect of the case, they would be at liberty to file all such documents also before the Trial Court and the Trial Court may therein considering the same take appropriate decision of accepting those documents, if found to be proper. 14. Another respect which is brought to the notice of this Court is that now there is a Court established at Bhatapara with the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhatapara. Therefore, the Court at Baloda Bazar may look into this aspect and if it found proper, the matter may be sent to the Court at Bhatapara for proceeding further with the trial. With the above observations, the instant petition is allowed. No order as to costs.