JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the order recorded by the learned JMIC Dalhousie, upon, complaint No. 11/14 of 2014, whereby the aforesaid complaint preferred before it, was returned to be presented, to the appropriate Court, holding the apposite jurisdiction to try it. The aforesaid order, is made, on anvil of a verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathor vs. State of Maharastra & another. However, subsequent thereto, on 29.12.2015, an amendment, in the hereinafter extracted, manner, has occurred in Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, relevant part whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “3. In the principal Act, Section 142 shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, “(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 (b) If the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.-for the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account”. 4. In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely:- “142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.” 2. A close reading, of, the attractable here at provisions, discloses, that the appropriate Court, holding the jurisdiction, to, try the apposite complaint, arising from dishonor of negotiable instrument IS (i) where within whose local limits, of jurisdiction, stand(s) located, the bank, where the payee or holder in due course, maintains his account AND where before the dishonoured negotiable instrument is presented, for collection(s) in his account. Consequently, bearing in mind the afore-extracted amendment(s) carried vis-à-vis Section 142, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act, (ii) thereupon with presentation, of, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being, made by the payee, at State Bank of India, Branch Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., whereat also he maintains his account(s), (ii) AND whereat after collection, from, the account(s) of the complainant maintained at a Bank located at Jammu, moneys would hence pour, (iii) thereupon with the aforesaid bank wherein the payee maintains his account(s) being situated, within, the local limits of the jurisdiction, of, Court located at Dalhousie, (iv) thereupon jurisdiction, was statutorily fastened in the aforesaid Court, for trying the complaint. In aftermath it was, not, appropriate for the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, to rely upon the pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case supra, (v) given its verdict not holding prevalence thereat, (vi) rather given prevalence thereat, of, the apposite amended provisions. 3. In view, of, a mandate recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2015, titled M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, mandate whereof, is borne in the apposite paragraph occurring at Sr. No. 14, para whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:- “In the above view of the matter, the instant appeal is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by its Indore bench, dated 05.05.2011, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, on 15.01.2016. In case the complaint filed by the appellant has been returned, it shall be re-presented before the Judicial magistrate, first Class, Indore, Madya Pradesh, on the date of appearance indicated hereinabove.” whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court, permitted, the complainant, to, represent the complaint before the returning Court, given, it, in consonance with the apt amendment(s), hence holding jurisdiction to, try it, (i) thereupon in consonance therewith, the returning Court, is, directed, to, on its representation there before, by the complainant accept it AND thereafter try it in accordance with law. The complaint be re-presented before the returning Court, within two weeks. In aftermath the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. In view of the above directions the petition as well as all pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.