ORDER 1. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act) alleging dishonour of an at par cheque drawn on the account maintained by the accused in a particular branch, but payable at any branch, is maintainable in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch in which the cheque was presented and got dishonoured is situated. The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P. No. 3220 of 2014 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act). 2. It is the case of the complainant that, he had business transaction with the accused as his clearing and forwarding agent of the export business and in that transaction, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was outstanding from the accused to the complainant towards the bill issued by the complainant for clearing and forwarding works done. When the accused wanted to issue a cheque for the said amount due to the complainant, the complainant had insisted the accused to issue a cheque payable at Ernakulam. In that circumstance, the accused issued an at par cheque bearing No. 419130 dated 30.08.2014 for Rs. 25,000/- drawn on account maintained by the accused in the Corporation Bank, Coimbatore Branch, payable at all branches of the Corporation Bank, in discharge of the said liability. 3. The complainant presented the cheque in his bank, M/s. Indian Bank, Wellington Island Branch, Ernakulam, for, collection. They sent the said cheque to Ravipuram Branch of the Corporation Bank for collection. But the cheque was dishonoured and returned by the Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, stating the reason funds insufficient, Thereupon, the complainant caused to issue a legal notice to the accused requiring to pay the cheque amount; but the said notice was returned unserved. The accused did not pay the amount covered by the cheque, despite the lawyer's notice issued to him demanding the said amount, Consequently, the complainant filed the above CMP before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (EQ), Ernakulam, to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused did not pay the amount covered by the cheque, despite the lawyer's notice issued to him demanding the said amount, Consequently, the complainant filed the above CMP before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (EQ), Ernakulam, to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. According to the complainant, he filed the complaint before the said Court on the reason that the cause of action had arisen at Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam, where the cheque was dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient fund. 4. On receipt of the complaint the Court issued notice to the accused for hearing on maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the said cheque had been drawn on the account maintained in the Branch of the said Bank at Coimbatore. The accused did not accept the notice and did not enter appearance. Thereupon the Court below considered the maintainability of the complaint, in view of territorial jurisdiction, on merits. 5. After hearing the complainant on merits, the Court below passed the impugned order returning the complaint for presentation before the proper Court at Coimbatore having jurisdiction, within one month from the date of the return order as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 (3) KHC 362 : 2014 (3) KLT 605 : 2014 (2) KLD 281 : 2014 (3) KLJ 600 : ILR 2014 (3) Ker. 771 : 2014 (9) SCC 129 : 2014 Cri. L.J. 4350 : AIR 2014 SC 3519 . The legality and propriety of the said finding whereby the Court below returned the complaint is under challenge in this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings whereby the Court below found that the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Court within whose jurisdiction dishonour occurs has the territorial jurisdiction to try the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In short, the Court below misconceived the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. 7. Going by the complaint and the impugned order under challenge, it is seen that the facts narrated in the complaint are not disputed or doubted. In short, the Court below misconceived the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. 7. Going by the complaint and the impugned order under challenge, it is seen that the facts narrated in the complaint are not disputed or doubted. So, the question raised above can be answered in view of the decision laid down by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (3) KHC 362 : 2014 (3) KLT 605 : 2014 (2) KLD 281 : 2014 (3) KLJ 600 : ILR 2014 (3) Ker. 771 : 2014 (9) SCC 129 : 2014 Cri. L.J. 4350 : AIR 2014 SC 3519 . 8. On an analysis of the above judgment, it could be seen that, the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had reconsidered the territorial jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, in view of all the earlier judgments with respect to the territorial jurisdiction and partly overruled the decision of the Apex Court in Bhaskaran vs. Balan, 1999 KHC 614 : 1999 (3) KLT 440 (SC): 2000 (2) KLJ 58 : 1999 (7) SCC 510 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 Cri. L.J. 4606 which governed the field and re-settled the legal position as detailed below. 9. The territorial jurisdiction of an at par cheque payable at any branch is not specifically decided in the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (3) KHC 362 : 2014 (3) KLT 605 : 2014 (2) KLD 281 : 2014 (3) KLJ 600 : ILR 2014 (3) Ker. 771 : 2014 (9) SCC 129 : 2014 Cri. L.J. 4350 : AIR 2014 SC 3519 . But the Apex Court had made a reference by stating that it is always open to the creditor to insist the cheque in question be made payable at the place of the creditors convenience. 10. In the above decision, the Apex Court held that an offence contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque and accordingly, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The offence in Section 138 of the NI Act is the dishonour of the cheque alone. The offence in Section 138 of the NI Act is the dishonour of the cheque alone. There is no provision in the NI Act, which would justify a departure from the stipulation that the place where the offence is committed is where the prosecution has to be conducted. 11. Where a cheque is drawn on the account maintained in a particular branch of a bank, but payable at any branch of that bank, the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging dishonour of that cheque, is maintainable, in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch at which the cheque was presented for encashment by the payee himself or by the payee's bank and got dishonoured is situated. Put it differently, the Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque has been dishonoured gets jurisdiction as the cause of action arises at the place where the dishonour occurs. 12. On an analysis of the preposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I have no doubt in my mind that the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour occurred has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. So if the cheque in question was dishonoured at the branch of Corporation bank at Ravipuram, certainly the Court which passed the impugned order has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 13. Coming to the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner has specifically stated in the Complaint that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured by the Ravipuram Branch, Ernakulam and the said branch which dishonoured the cheque is situating within the jurisdiction of the Court below. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, it is also stated that the cause of action for filing the above complaint arose on 10.10.2014 at Ravipuram, Ernakulam where the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured. But the complainant's bank has not issued a memo stating that the cheque was dishonoured at the service branch of Corporation bank at Ravipuram and the complainant's Bank through which he sent the cheque for collection alone has issued a memo stating that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. 14. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed another petition to summon the branch manager, Corporation Bank at Ravipuram to prove the place where the dishonour of the cheque occurred. 14. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed another petition to summon the branch manager, Corporation Bank at Ravipuram to prove the place where the dishonour of the cheque occurred. It is seen that the Court below has not considered the said application before passing an impugned order under challenge. In this analysis, I set aside the impugned order under challenge and the Court below is directed to restore the complaint on the files and allow the petitioner to prove the place of occurrence of dishonour of the cheque by summoning the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Ravipuram branch, for which he had already filed an application. On evidence, if the Court below finds that the cheque was dishonoured at Service Branch of the Corporation Bank at Ravipuram, the Court below shall accept the complaint on the file and proceed in accordance with law. Needless to say, on the contrary, the Court below is at liberty to pass order accordingly. This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.