ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 18.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Revision No. 19/2015 by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the JMFC, Chachoda, District Guna in MCRC No. 100/2014. 2. The facts leading to file this petition are that the petitioner firm does business of medicines relating to agriculture. Some products were sold by the petitioner firm to the respondent firm against which a cheque was given by the respondent. On presentation, the cheque was dishonored. A complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner firm before the CJM, Mirzapur, Ahmadabad, Gujarat which was registered as Case No. 7894/2011. The said Court, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon. the apex Court in the case of Dashrath Roopsingh Rathore v. State of Maharashtra, (Criminal Appeal No. 2297/2009, decided on 1.8.2014) returned back the case to the petitioner on 17.10.2014 with the direction that the cheque in question is of Kumbhraj, Guna, therefore, the complaint case be filed before the concerned Court within thirty days. The petitioner firm filed the complaint case on 22.11.2014 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the JMFC, Chachoda but the same was dismissed on 17.12.2014 treating the complaint to be time barred. The petitioner firm filed revision being No. 19/2015 against the order dated 17.12.2014, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna on 18.5.2015 affirming the order of the JMFC, Chachoda. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are bad-inlaw and deserve to be quashed. The revisional Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are bad-inlaw and deserve to be quashed. The revisional Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. As the complaint filed before the CJM, Mirzapur was in Gujarati language, therefore, it took some time to get it translated into Hindi and English and when the same got translated, the Regional Manager of the petitioner firm got sick, due to which the complaint could not be filed within thirty days for which medical certificate was also filed before the trial Court but the said fact was not taken into consideration by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court. There was only five days delay in filing the complaint before the trial Court. The cheque in question involves an amount of Rs.14,90,603/- which is a huge amount and the petitioner firm is suffering financial crisis. Therefore, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the complaint should be condoned. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Kerala High Court passed in the cases of P.N. Raman v. K. Abdul Rahiman and anr., Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 492/2017, decided on 14.6.2017 and K. Subair v. State of Kerala and anr., Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 691/2017, decided on 11.7.2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:- "142. Cognizance of offences. Rev. Pet. No. 492/2017, decided on 14.6.2017 and K. Subair v. State of Kerala and anr., Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 691/2017, decided on 11.7.2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:- "142. Cognizance of offences. - [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) o the proviso to section 138: [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.] (c) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.] [(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.]" 7. Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under : "142A.Validation for transfer of pending cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court, all cases arising out of section 138 which were pending in any Court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commence-ment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 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 CR No. 204958/2016 Vikram Monga v. Sanjay Dhingra, Page No. 6 of 16 jurisdiction of that Court. (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 sub-section (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 times." 8. As per section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cases mentioned in section 142A (1) shall be deemed transferred under this Act which are arising out of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which were pending in any Court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. Therefore, the question of condonation of delay does not arise. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is hereby allowed and the orders passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the complaint filed before the Juridical Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, District Guna is hereby restored. 10. The petitioner is directed to remain present along with his counsel before the trial Court on 27th June, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. sharp. The concerned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information and compliance.