JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S.A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. As both the transfer petitions, Transfer Petition [Criminal] No. 1/2026 & Transfer Petition [Criminal] no. 2/2026, are preferred on similar grounds by the same petitioner, though the respondents arraigned are different, both the criminal petitions are taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself having regard to the grounds urged for transfer of the two complaint cases, N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 & N.I.C.R. Case no. 3/2025, presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Chirang [‘the Trial Court’ for short]. 3. One Md. Kurban Ali as the complainant has instituted the complaint case, N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 against the petitioner as the sole accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner-accused as the drawer of the cheques from a savings bank account maintained at State Bank of India [SBI], BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch. The complainant has alleged that when the cheques were presented for collection in his savings bank account maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, the cheuqes were returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner-accused. After taking cognizance on the complaint, the Trial Court has issued processes [summons] to the petitioner for his appearance before the Trial Court. Transfer Petition [Criminal] no. 1/2026 has been preferred seeking transfer of the proceedings of N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 from the Court of learned CJM, Chirang to the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup [M], Guwahati. 4. One Abu Baser Rezabul Hoque Ahmed has instituted the complaint case, N.I.C.R. Case no. 03/2025 before the Trial Court in connection with a cheque issued for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. It is averred in the complaint that when the cheuqe was presented by the complainant in his bank account maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, the cheque was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the savings bank account of the petitioner-accused. The complainant has stated that, after observance of due formalities, he had instituted the complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act and the Trial Court upon taking cognizance of the offence, issued process [summons] to the petitioner-accused for his appearance before the Trial Court. 5. The complainant has stated that, after observance of due formalities, he had instituted the complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act and the Trial Court upon taking cognizance of the offence, issued process [summons] to the petitioner-accused for his appearance before the Trial Court. 5. In both the complaints, the complainant presented cheques, issued by the petitioner- accused, in their respective bank accounts maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, District – Chirang, Assam. 6. As per sub-clause [a] of sub-section [2] of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, 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. Having regard to the afore-stated statutory provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Sing , [2016] 2 SCC 75 , has held that Section 142[2][a] of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, has vested jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138, N.I. Act inter-alia in the territorial jurisdiction of court, where cheque is delivered for collection [through an account of branch of bank where payee or holder in due course maintains an account]. Therefore, the Court of learned CJM, Chirang has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, as alleged in the two complaints. 7. The grounds urged by the petitioner in the two transfer petitions is that though the petitioner has his ancestral house at Chirang, he has shifted his place of residence to Guwahati since July, 2024 due to his certain serious health issues requiring regular medical treatment and since then, the petitioner is residing at Guwahati. Due to institution of the two complaint cases before the Trial Court at Chirang, the petitioner, who is aged about 60 years and is suffering from various ailments, would face inconvenience to appear before the Trial Court by travelling the distance from Guwahati to Chirang. 8. Due to institution of the two complaint cases before the Trial Court at Chirang, the petitioner, who is aged about 60 years and is suffering from various ailments, would face inconvenience to appear before the Trial Court by travelling the distance from Guwahati to Chirang. 8. It has emerged from the record that at an earlier point of time, the petitioner instituted criminal petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings of N.I.C.R. Case no. 08/2025 & N.I.C.R. Case no. 03/2025. This Court after consideration of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the criminal petitions, Criminal Petition no. 641/2025 & Criminal Petition no. 582/2025 by Judgments, dated on 02.12.2025. It is after dismissal of the criminal petitions, these two transfer petitions have been preferred. 9. In the complaint case, N.I.C.R. Case no. 03/2025, the complainant has asserted that the petitioner herein is a contractor who undertakes contract-works at Bongaigaon Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL], District - Chirang and the complainant is a sub- contractor under the petitioner. It is in connection with a contract-works allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Bongaigaon Refinery, IOCL, the petitioner borrowed a sum from the complainant and against such borrowing, the cheques, which later on stood dishonoured, were issued. 10. The present two transfer petitions have been preferred under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023, which is similarly worded like Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the grounds mentioned above. 11. Section 447 of the BNSS, 2023 has provided power to the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. For ready reference, sub-section [1] of Section 447 is quoted hereunder :- 447. 11. Section 447 of the BNSS, 2023 has provided power to the High Court to transfer cases and appeals. For ready reference, sub-section [1] of Section 447 is quoted hereunder :- 447. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals :- [1] Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court – [a] that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; [b] that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; [c] that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order- [i] that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 197 to 205 [both inclusive], but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; [ii] that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; [iii] that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; [iv] that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. 12. 12. On a reading of the provisions contained in sub-section [1] of Section 447 of the BNSS, it is evident that the power to transfer cases is exercisable in three situations :- [a] that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or [b] that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or [c] that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order- [i] that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 197 to 205 [both inclusive], but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence; [ii] that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; [iii] that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or [iv] that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself. 13. In Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , [2012] 4 SCC 217 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the power to transfer criminal proceeding has observed in the following words :- 46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances, in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea therefore, deserves outright rejection. 14. Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned. The instant plea therefore, deserves outright rejection. 14. The petitioner’s plea herein for transfer is based primarily for the inconvenience and distance to travel from Guwahati to Chirang. The distance is stated to be less than about 170 kilometers. 15. The petitioner is stated to be a contractor who executes contract-works for the IOCL at Dhaligaon, District – Chirang. The cheques which were returned unpaid and which are subject-matters of the two complaint cases, were issued by the petitioner from a bank account maintained by him at BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch of SBI, which is located in District - Chirang. The cheques were also presented for collection by the complainants at bank branches within District – Chirang. Therefore, the witnesses cited by the complainants’ sides are mostly from Chirang districts. The Court of the CJM, Chirang has the jurisdiction statutorily to try the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. 16. It is settled that the power under Section 407, CrPC has to be construed strictly and is to be exercised with care and circumspection. The discretion of transferring cases is to be exercised only when it would be expedient for the ends of justice. A similar analogy is applicable for Section 447, BNSS. In the case in hand, such factors are found to be absent. Therefore, the two transfer petitions are not entertained. 17. It is always available to the petitioner to seek exemption from personal appearance and to appear in the proceedings also through electronic mode. As per Section 530, BNSS, all trials, inquiries and proceedings under the BNSS including examination of complainant and witnesses can also to be held by electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means. The Gauhati High Court in order to avoid delay in judicial proceedings due to non-availability of parties, advocates, witnesses and accused physically, has framed ‘the Gauhati High Court use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules [Nyaya Shruti], 2025’ to formalize and enable use of electronic communication and other audio-video electronic means for the purpose of conducting trial, inquiry and proceeding under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. On a query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 18. On a query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahman has submitted that the petitioner has neither preferred any application seeking exemption from personal appearance nor to permit him to appear through audio-video mode, before the Trial Court till date. In such view of the matter, liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to prefer an application either to seek exemption from personal appearance or to appear through audio-video modes etc. during the proceedings of the two complaint case, save and except on the dates where his personal appearance is necessary, for the Trial Court’s consideration of such applications on merits and in accordance with law.