Goutham Television Centre And Anr. vs Apex Agencies And Anr. on 30 October, 1992
In Criminal Petition No. 1266 of 1991, dated September 1, 1992 (Dynamatic Forgings India Ltd. v. Nagarjuna Investment Trusts Ltd. [1994] 79 Comp Cas 583 (AP)), my learned brother, Iyyapu Panduranga Rao J. took the same view. In this case, a contract of hire purchase was entered into at Bombay. The payment was proposed to be made at Bombay. The dishonouring of the cheque took place at Bombay. The first petitioner and the first respondent had meetings to discuss the payment of money at Bombay and after the dishonour of the cheque there have been several meetings between the first petitioner and the first respondent at Bombay. In those circumstances it was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in that criminal petition that the offence, if any, was committed only at Bombay and the courts at places other than Bombay have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. On the other hand, it was the contention of the first respondent that the cheques were issued to the first respondent at Hyderabad, that the cheques were presented for collection at Hyderabad, that the first respondent received information regarding bouncing of the cheques only at Hyderabad and that, therefore, the courts at Hyderabad have got jurisdiction. After careful analysis of the respective contentions, the learned judge held that it is to be seen that the office of the first respondent is located at Nagarjuna Hills at Hyderabad, over which the Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has jurisdiction, that the cheque was issued in favour of the first respondent-company with its head office at Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad, that the said cheque was presented at Hyderabad for collection and that consequently part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad by virtue of section 178 and 179 of Criminal Procedure Code and consequently the court at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the offence.