ORDER : BUDIHAL R.B., J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner present. Respondent, though served with the notice of the petition, has remained absent and there is no representation even today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying the Court to transfer the criminal case in C.C. No.5430/2015 on the file of the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to Kundgol Magistrate Court, Kundgol, in the ends of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the complainant and the respondent is the accused before the Trial Court in C.C. No.5430/2015 pending before the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. It is further pleaded that accused has suffered a lot of illness in his health; because of the ailments, accused is continuously taking treatment in different hospitals; daughter of the accused is also suffering from ailments and she is also taking follow up treatment regularly. It is contended that, on 01.07.2014, the accused met the complainant and requested for financial help for the treatment for himself and for his daughter. Accordingly, complainant obliged the same due to friendship with accused and paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - as a hand-loan, in the presence of one Mr. Jagadish Huli, who is also a friend of accused and the complainant. The accused received the said amount and promised to repay the said loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The complainant waited for four months, but the accused neither repaid the amount nor contacted the complainant. The complainant met the accused on 02.12.2014 and requested to repay the loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, but instead of paying the said amount accused requested and issued a cheque bearing No.095751 dated 02.12.2014 drawn on State of Bank of Mysore Puttanahalli Branch. Bengaluru. Further, he requested that cheque can be given for collection. Accordingly, the complainant believing the words of the accused, presented the cheque through his banker - State Bank of India, Kundagol Branch in his account bearing No.33269991557 on 04.12.2014 and, in turn, the State Bank of India sent the cheque for collection to the local bank, State Bank of Mysore. But, the State Bank of Mysore sent a intimation stating that "funds insufficient in the account of the accused person. But, the State Bank of Mysore sent a intimation stating that "funds insufficient in the account of the accused person. Accordingly, a legal notice came to be issued to the accused through an advocate and the same is duly served on the accused. But, the accused has not replied for the said legal notice. In spite of several requests and attempts made by the complainant, accused did not repay the legally recoverable debt. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint before the 16th ACMM, Bengaluru in RC. No.400/2015. 4. After the statement of the complainant, the learned ACMM has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C. No.5430/2015 the evidence of the complainant before the Trial Court not yet commenced. It is further pleaded that due to amendment which has come into force from 15th June 2015 and section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was newly insertged and in view of the said amendment, now, the Court at Kundagol jurisdiction, wherein the cheque was presented and it was dishonoured is having the jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, the petitioner sought for transfer of the case from 16th ACMM Court, Bengaluru to Kundagol Magistrate Court, in the ends of justice. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant. 6. I have perused the amended provision - section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as under: "(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction, - (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or" In view of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course as the case may be maintains the account is situated, is having the jurisdiction to try the case. In this connection, I am also referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014)9 SCC 129 : [2015(2) AICLR (S.C.) 763[ in the case Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court also laid down the proposition regarding jurisdiction for trying the case as under: "A. Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Territorial jurisdiction for filing of cheque dishonour complaint, held, is restricted to the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is committed, which is the location where the cheque is dishonoured i.e. returned unpaid by the bank on which it is drawn - Thus, held, place of issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction for filing of cheque dishonour complaints - complainant is statutorily bound to comply with sections 177 to 179 CrPC, 1973 and therefore the place or situs where the section 138 NI Act complaint is to be filed is not of the choosing of complainant." 7. Therefore, looking to the amendment to section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the principle enunciated in the said decision referred to above, the petitioner has made out a case. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The criminal case in C.C. No.5430/ 2015 on the file of the 16th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, is ordered to be transferred from the said Court to the Kundgol Magistrate Court to try and dispose of the same in accordance with law.