ORDER : 1. Instant misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jodhpur Metropolitan rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 142(1) & 142(2) of the N.I. Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act before Additional Civil Judge(JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan. The Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I) Act Cases) No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan, took cognizance for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application dated 23.12.2017 under Section 142(1)(2) N.I. Act read with Section 461 (k)(l) Cr.P.C stating therein that the complaint was not lodged within the local/territorial jurisdiction of paying bank, which amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of section 142(2) and 142A of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the order passed by the court below taking cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned trial court vide order dated 26.02.2018, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of District and Session Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan by way of revision petition, which was transferred to the court of Additional District and Session Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan. Learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan vide order dated 01.03.2019 rejected the revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant did not lodge the complaint within the local/territorial jurisdiction of paying bank which amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of section 142(2) and 142A of N.I. Act and thus, the order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court is in violation of the provisions of the N.I. Act. It is further argued that the learned trial court was not having territorial jurisdiction to inquire into the aforesaid case as per section 142(2) and 142A (1) N.I. Act. Learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hukmaram v. State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases 591 (Rajasthan), Sunil Todi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hukmaram v. State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases 591 (Rajasthan), Sunil Todi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 147 , Archana Mittal v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. (S.B. Crl. Misc. petition No. 2589/2022 decided on 31.08.2022, Sayed Mohammed and ors. v. state of Maharashtra and ors 2022(3) reported in Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 245, Mahendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and another reported in 2021 CRI. L.J. 3889, Vishwadini Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2021 CRI. L.J. 3894, Shivshankar Shrikrushna Dhole v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) ALLMR (Cri) 3409, Vijay Dhanuka Etc. v. Najima Mamtaj Etc. reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 2295, State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram reported in 2014 CRI. L.J. 2300, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimabalkar and another reported in AIR 2017 SC 299 , Ajay Singh and another and Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh and another reported in AIR 2017 SC 310 , Asma v. State of Maharashtra (2018) AllMR (Cri) 3666. It is thus, prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and the order taking cognizance so also the complaint filed by the complainant may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the complaint was presented before Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act cases) No. 1, Jodhpur, which was having jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case and later on, only the name of court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act cases) No. 1, Jodhpur was changed to Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act cases) No. 9, Jodhpur. Even the signature in the ordersheets dated 16.05.2013, 22.07.2013, 29.10.2013 and 07.12.2013 is that of the same Presiding officer. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and therefore, the misc. petition may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 6. Admittedly, the complaint was instituted by the complainant respondent in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. petition may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record. 6. Admittedly, the complaint was instituted by the complainant respondent in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that with reference to an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan neither had the jurisdiction to try the case nor transfer the case. 7. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, titled 'Cognizance of Offence', provides 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. 8. Section 142(2) was inserted in the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 along with Section 142A. 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. 9. Thus, so far as the question of jurisdiction of aforesaid Court is concerned, it is clear that 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. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan was not having jurisdiction, is not tenable. Moreover, it has been specifically observed by the revisional Court in its order dated 01.03.2019 that at the time of presentation of the complaint, the Banker of both the parties i.e. Bank of India and Punjab National Bank fell within the jurisdiction of the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan and therefore, it cannot be said that the said court was not having jurisdiction to try the case. 10. 10. So far as the transfer of the case from the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan to Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 9, Jodhpur Metropolitan is concerned, it is relevant to refer notification issued by the State Government being Notification No. P 1(3) Justice/2010 dated 12.06.2013 of the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan which reads as under: jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx dzekad% i-1¼3½U;k;@2010 t;iqj] fnukad% 12-6-2013 vf/klwpuk t;iqj 'kgj ,oa tks/kiqj 'kgj ds egkuxj ?kksf”kr gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i n.M izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k&2½ dh /kkjk 16 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls bl laca/k esa tkjh lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukd 04@01@2011 ds dze la[;k 68 o 69 dks foyksfir djrs gq, ,oa flfoy U;k;ky; v/;kns'k 1950 ¼lu 1950 dk v/;kns'k l[;k&7½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk 1] /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk 1 ,oa /kkjk 16 dh mi/kkjk 1 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls bl laca/k esa tkjh iwoZ vf/klwpuk fnukad 4&1&2011 ds dz-la- 77 o 78 foyksfir djrs gq, mDr U;k;ky;ksa dk uke iqu% fuEukuqlkj la'kksf/kr djrh gS%& Øla- vf/klwpuk dzekad % i-1¼3½U;k;@2010 fnukad 4-1-11 o dzekad % i-1¼3½U;k;@2010 fnukad 4-1-1 ds leSfdr izHkko ls ukeksns'ku fnukad 4-1-11 iwoZ dk ukeksn'ku izLrkfor ukeksns'ku v/khuLFkrk 1 vij flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼,u-vkbZ-,DV-dSlst½ dksVZ la- 1] tks/kiqj egkuxj ,oa vij flfoy tks/kiqj U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ la- 9] tks/kiqj egkuxj fo'ks”k U;kf;d eftLVªsV ¼,u-vkbZ- ,DV dSlst½ dksVZ la- 1] tks/kiqj vij flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa fof'k”V egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼,u- vkbZ- ,DV dSlst½ la[;k 9] tks/kiqj egkuxj tks/kiqj egkuxj 2 vij flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼,u-vkbZ-,DV-dSlst½ dksVZ la- 2] tks/kiqj egkuxj ,oa vij flfoy tks/kiqj U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ la- 10] tks/kiqj egkuxj fo'ks”k U;kf;d eftLVªsV ¼,u-vkbZ- ,DV dSlst½ dksVZ la- 2] tks/kiqj vij flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa fof'k”V egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼,u- vkbZ- ,DV dSlst½ la[;k 10] tks/kiqj egkuxj tks/kiqj egkuxj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] lgh@& ¼izdk'k xqIrk½ izeq[k 'kklu lfpo 11. The aforesaid notification was issued on 12.06.2013 whereas, in the case in hand, the complaint was filed on 16.05.2013. The aforesaid notification was issued on 12.06.2013 whereas, in the case in hand, the complaint was filed on 16.05.2013. Therefore, on the 16.05.2013 the complaint was registered in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan and after issuance of the aforesaid notification on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.07.2013, the stamp of Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Cases), No. 9 Jodhpur Metropolitan Court was affixed in the ordersheet and so did in the subsequent ordersheets. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the complaint case was transferred from one Court to another court, having no jurisdiction, is also unfounded. 12. 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. 13. The revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for interfering with the impugned orders. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 26.02.2018 & 01.03.2019. Hence, both the misc. petitions are hereby dismissed. 14. Stay petitions are also dismissed.