ORDER : 1. Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) by which learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner so also the administrative order dated 22.04.2022 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh transferring the complaint case to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint on 04.01.2021 against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the learned Special Judge (N.I. Act Cases), Chittorgarh stating therein that since the petitioner was in dire need of money, the complainant extended a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-and in lieu of repayment of loan, the petitioner gave a cheque in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-dated 25.12.2020 drawn on State Bank of India Branch, Chittorgarh. It was alleged that when the complainant presented the said cheque for realization, the same was dishonoured with the remark "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the complainant gave a legal notice on 11.03.2021 and after stipulated period of 30 days, the complainant presented the complaint before the learned Special Judge, (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh. 3. The Special Judge (N.I. Act Cases), Chittorgarh took cognizance on 04.10.2021 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and directed issue of summons to the petitioner. During pendency of the service of summons, the learned District Judge vide order dated 22.04.2022 transferred the complaint from court of Special Judge (N.I. Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh who thereafter issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh by way of revision petition, which was transferred to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh vide order dated 17.09.2022 dismissed the revision petition on the ground that District and Sessions Judge got the powers under Section 408 Cr.P.C. to transfer the complaint from the court of Special Judge (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magsitrate, Chittorgarh. 5. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh vide order dated 17.09.2022 dismissed the revision petition on the ground that District and Sessions Judge got the powers under Section 408 Cr.P.C. to transfer the complaint from the court of Special Judge (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magsitrate, Chittorgarh. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so also the action of the learned District Judge transferring the complaint from the court of Special Judge (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh vide order dated 22.04.2022 are against the mandatory provisions of Section 142 (2) and 142A of the N.I. Act as the transferee Court was not having the jurisdiction or legal right to issue arrest warrant and try the case. It is argued that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also erroneous that the District Judge has got powers under Section 408 Cr.P.C. to transfer the complaint from Special Judge (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of ACJM No.2, Chittorgarh. According to counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 142A, by way of Cr.P.C provisions or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, complaint case cannot be transferred to any other Court not having the jurisdiction to try the case. It is further argued that the order dated 22.04.2022 is also a very cryptic order without assigning any reason for transfer of case from Special Judge (NI Act Cases), Chittorgarh to the court of ACJM No.2, Chittorgarh. Learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon’ble Courts in the case of M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal singh 2016(1) Civil Court Cases 341 (S.C.), M/s. Himalaya Self Farming Group And Anr. v. M/s. Goyal Feed Suppliers 2020(4) Civil Court Cases 031 (S.C.), Ilakkia Raja v. T. Umamaheswaran 2021(2) Civil Court Cases 371 (MADRAS) in K. Hanumanthappa v. K.B. Nagaraj reported in (2017) 3 AIR Kar 723, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the administrative orders and the remand order made in the earlier proceedings cannot prevail over the statutory provisions which requires the matter to be dealt with only by the court having jurisdiction in terms of Section 142A(2) of the Act. It is thus, prayed that the misc petition may be allowed and the order taking cognizance against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.04.2022 transferred the case from the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases, Chittorgarh to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.02 Chittorgarh. In this connection, it is noteworthy that in Section 408 of the Code Criminal Procedure, the provision of powers of the Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals has been given. Section 408(1) provides that whenever it appears to the Sessions Judge that it is expedient for the end of justice to make an order under this sub- section, he may order that any particular case be referred to a Criminal Court in his Division of Session be transferred to another Criminal Court. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge while exercising powers under the said provision, transferred the case to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2 Chittorgarh. Therefore, in the light of the above legal provisions, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 is not liable to be interfered. Therefore, the Criminal Misc. Petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 8. In the first instance, it is relevant to refer to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, titled ‘Cognizance of Offence’, provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 except on a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque; such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause(c) of the proviso to section 138; and no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under Section 138. 9. 9. Further section 142(2) was inserted in the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 along with Section 142-A. Section 142(2) provides that; [(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.] 142A Validation for transfer of pending cases 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. 10. On the reading of the provision of the Act, it is clear that the jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated. The newly inserted Section 142-A further clarifies this position by validating the transfer of pending cases to the Courts conferred with such jurisdiction after the amendment. However, the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 would override Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it would not be permissible for Sessions Court to transfer the said case, in exercise of power thereunder, is not tenable. However, the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 would override Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it would not be permissible for Sessions Court to transfer the said case, in exercise of power thereunder, is not tenable. The power of Sessions Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not stand abrogated thereby in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Yogesh Upadhyay And Anr. v. Atlanta Limited (Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 526-527/2022 decided on 21.02.2023) has held that notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the N.I. Act, 1881, the power of Apex Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 of Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, if it found expedient for the end of justice. 11. The observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Yogesh Upadhyay And Anr. v. Atlanta Limited (supra) read as under: "13. Therefore, institution of the first two complaint cases before the Courts at Nagpur is in keeping with the legal position obtaining now. However, the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881 would override Section 406 Cr.P.C. and that it would not be permissible for this Court to transfer the said complaint cases, in exercise of power thereunder, cannot be countenanced. It may be noted that the non obstante clause was there in the original Section 142 itself and was not introduced by way of the amendments in the year 2015, along with Section 142(2). The said clause merely has reference to the manner in which cognizance is to be taken in offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, as a departure has to be made from the usual procedure inasmuch as prosecution for the said offence stands postponed despite commission of the offence being complete upon dishonour of the cheque and it must necessarily be in terms of the procedure prescribed. The clause, therefore, has to be read and understood in the context and for the purpose it is used and it does not lend itself to the interpretation that Section 406 Cr.P.C. would stand excluded vis-à-vis offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The clause, therefore, has to be read and understood in the context and for the purpose it is used and it does not lend itself to the interpretation that Section 406 Cr.P.C. would stand excluded vis-à-vis offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The power of this Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under Section 406 Cr.P.C. does not stand abrogated thereby in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. It may be noted that this Court exercised power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 even during the time the original Section 142 held the field. In A.E. Premanand Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. & Others [ (2004) 13 SCC 527 ], this Court took note of the fact that the offences therein, under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, had arisen out of one single transaction and found it appropriate and in the interest of justice that all such cases should be tried in one Court. We, therefore, hold that, notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice." 12. Thus, in the light of aforesaid observation, the power of Sessions Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 408 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice. 13. So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same relates to territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and same does not help the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) by which learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner so also the administrative order dated 22.04.2022 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is not interfered with. However, the arrest warrant so issued against the petitioner is converted into bailable warrant of Rs.30,000/-. If the petitioner appears before the trial court within a period of 15 days, the trial court is directed to decide the bail application, preferably on the same day. In case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court within a period of 15 days, then the trial court shall issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby disposed of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.