The amendments made to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 by the Second Ordinance of 2015, as regards territorial jurisdiction for filing cheque bounce complaints, retrospectively apply to pending cases filed before the Ordinance came into force. The words "….as if that sub-section has been in force at all material times…."used wrt new section 142(2) in new section 142A(1) gives retrospective effect to new section 142(2)
a) A cheuqe was drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh by the respondent to the appellant - M/s Bridgestone India Pvt.Ltd. The appellant presented the said cheque at IDBI Bank in Indore for realization, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.
b) On failing to discharge obligation by respondent, the appellant initiated proceeding in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore (‘Magistrate’) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
c) The Magistrate by an order held that he had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy raised by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decision rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, was assailed by the accused-respondent in another petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh before its Indore Bench
d) The High Court accepted the prayer made by the accused-respondent - Inderpal Singh by holding, that the jurisdiction lay only before the Court wherein the original drawee bank was
located, namely, at Chandigarh, where-from the accused-respondent had issued the concerned cheque, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh.
e) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court, the appellant has approached Supreme Court. The appellant cited the decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129
The Supreme Court held as under:
1) In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, it was apparent, that the impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, was wholly justified. Howeve, Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account).
2) Based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises.
3) Since cheque was drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant we are of the view that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. The words "...as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times..." used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision.
4) In the above view of the matter, the instant appeal was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, was set aside - Bridgestone India (P.) Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh  64 taxmann.com 50 (SC)