ORDER
Arunachalam, J.

1. The petitioner who appears to be the proprietor of M/s Techne Science Industries, is carrying on his trade at No.209 Linghi Chetty Street, Madras, 1. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Madras against one G. Nagarajan, Chairman, Seethai Animal Polytechnic, Keelakandani, Sivagangai for an alleged offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The entire details-stated in the complaint, need not have to be gone into, for the disposal of this petition. Suffice to state, that towards discharge of his liability, the accused issued cheques, the subject-matter of this prosecution in favour of the petitioner.

2. The accused issued two cheques dated 26.9.89 and 26.10.89 in favour of the petitioner, drawn on the Bank of Madura Ltd., Sivaganga Branch. The petitioner deposited the cheques with his bankers, Karur Vysya Bank, Madras, situate within the jurisdiction of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate. These cheques were returned by the said bank with an endorsement “refer to drawer”, on 18.11.89. Thereafter, on the same day, the petitioner sent a letter to the accused, demanding payment by demand draft, which was received by the accused on 27.11.1989. The complaint was lodged on 18.12.1989. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, to direct the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate to receive the complaint dated 18.12.1989 and dispose it of in accordance with law, it is stated that the complaint which was presented before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, was returned with an endorsement, which reads as follows:

The cheque was drawn on and was dishonoured by a bank outside the jurisdiction of the Court The complaint pay be presented in the Court in whose jurisdiction the bank in which the borrower has account, is situated.

It is this order of return, which is challenged in this petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

3. On an earlier occasion, a similar complaint was sent back to the same Magistrate with a direction to take it on file and dispose it of in accordance with law. In spite of an earlier direction, it is rather strange that the Magistrate seems to adopt the same erroneous procedure over again. In so far as the jurisdiction of the criminal court in inquiry and trials, Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any doubt, indicate that in a contingency of this type, the Court situate in a place where the consequence had occurred, has jurisdiction to try and dispose of the case. If that be so, the complaint filed by the petitioner will have to be entertained by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate within whose jurisdiction Karur Vysya Bank is situate and which bank is the banker of the petitioner. Further, the liability itself had arisen at Madras. It is also evident from the narration in the complaint, that the order of the return of the complaint made by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate is unsustainable, and is not in accordance with law. It is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to take back the complaint on file and dispose it of in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original complaint which had been returned by the Magistrate is in his possession. The said complaint will be represented by the petitioner before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, for necessary further action.

4. This petition is allowed.