JUDGMENT : Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 under ordinary process pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2018 passed in the instant case and as per the office note, service report has been received and the report of process server indicates that notice has been received by opposite party no.2, which is on record. 2. Pursuant to this order, this Court posted the matter under the heading ‘For Admission’ vide order dated 14.08.2018. Thereafter, in order to give opportunity to the opposite party no.2 the case was adjourned 5 times i.e. on 11.04.2019, 26.04.2019, 10.05.2019, 14.06.2019 and 28.06.2019 but even today the opposite party no.2 is not represented by any counsel even on repeated calls. In view of this, I am proceeding to decide this case on the basis of documents available on record. 3. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag whereby the learned court below has dismissed the complaint case of the petitioner being Complaint Case No.769 of 2011 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 4. The complaint case as alleged in the complaint petition against the accused person namely Sanjay Kumar is that, the accused once approached the petitioner regarding sanction of loan for the purpose to purchase one vehicle bearing registration No. JH02B 8788 and to this effect both parties entered into an agreement vide agreement No. TSLHAZAR0000026 and as per the terms and conditions, it was agreed by the accused that he will pay the said loan amount and its interest by way of equal monthly installments. Since he was irregular in making installments, in discharge of his debt and liability towards the complainant’s company issued the cheque in question. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the cheque was deposited through the complainant’s Banker Axis Bank Ltd. Hazaribag Branch, Hazaribag, the said cheque was dishonored and returned unpaid vide returning memo dated 7.4.2011 with the endorsement “Insufficient Fund” and thereafter the complainant sent legal notice dated 7.5.2011 through its counsel within the period of limitation but no avail as the same was return by endorsement “Pata nahi chala” and therefore complainant company filed the instant complaint case on 22.06.2011 within the statutory period as prescribed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 6. 6. It is further argued that though the complaint case was in order but learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in exercise of power u/s 201 of Cr.P.C. has dismissed the complaint case vide order dated 02.09.2013 on two grounds :- (I) The court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint case as cheque was presented at the Hazaribag, and (II) Legal notice sent was undelivered. He concluded his argument by contending that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the complaint case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. 8. On the question of jurisdiction, I am of the considered opinion that though the said cheque was issued from Bank of India Jumri Tilaiya Branch (Koderma) but the said cheque was presented by the company for its encashment at Hazaribag, is in accordance with law because after the ordiance promulgated by Hon’ble President of India which is called “The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015” whereby Section 142 of N.I. Act was amended and Section 142 was numbered as Sub-section (1) thereof and after Sub section (I) as so numbered, the following subsection was inserted, namely:- (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, and 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. 9. Under the above facts and circumstances, the instant complaint case is maintainable and learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag is competent enough to entertain the aforesaid complaint case filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. 10. On the point of undelivered legal notice, I am of the view that though the notice has been return undelivered with endorsement ‘Pat nahi chala’ but when this Hon’ble Court issued notice to the opposite party no.2, the same has been delivered to him on the same address but he did not bothered to appear before this Hon’ble Court. 10. On the point of undelivered legal notice, I am of the view that though the notice has been return undelivered with endorsement ‘Pat nahi chala’ but when this Hon’ble Court issued notice to the opposite party no.2, the same has been delivered to him on the same address but he did not bothered to appear before this Hon’ble Court. It thus appears that the accused was in full knowledge of the said complaint case but deliberately avoided to receive the said notice as mentioned in the complaint petition. 11. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag has erred in this order by not looking to the facts advanced during the course of pleading as well as relevant documents submitted by the complainant. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the amendment in the Negotiable Instrument Act, whereby Section 142 of N.I. Act was amended and Section 142 was numbered as sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 has been inserted, the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned court below is set-aside. 13. Needless to say that the said amendment is retrospective in nature which is clear from the language used by legislature. In this regard, Section 142A (3) is quoted hereinbelow :- “(3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 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 subsection (2) of Section 142 before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material time.” 14. As a result, the case is remitted back to the court concerned to consider the case of the petitioner de novo in accordance with law and after giving full opportunity to the parties preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision application is allowed and disposed of.