IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 27 of 2010() --------------------------- CC.1325/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------- M. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, KEERTHI BHAVAN, EROOR SOUTH.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.REKHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.K. SUNIL KUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NAVEEN NIVAS, VADAYAR.P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K MEERA THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.27 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.1325 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act”). He has various contentions as to his non-liability but those contentions are not relevant for consideration in this petition for transfer of the case to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Petitioner says that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that court and petitioner being aged finds it difficult to travel upto Vaikom. His further case is that he is facing threat from respondent No.1 and his men. 2. The apprehension alleged must be real and substantial. Apart from the bald averments there is nothing to show that there is any genuine apprehension for the petitioner from respondent No.1. 3. So far as travelling distance between Eroor South where petitioner is residing (near Thripunithura) and the location of the trial court at Vaikom is concerned, the distance is around 30-35 kms. That is not so far a distance to think that petitioner cannot go over to that place. And there are so many fast Transfer Petition(Crl.)27/2010 2 moving buses plying between these places. I am not inclined to think that for the petitioner aged 62 years the distance is so far away that he finds it difficult to reach the place of trial. 4. So far the allegation regarding lack of jurisdiction for the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom is concerned, it is specifically stated in the complaint that the cheque was issued at the house of respondent No.1 at Vadayar (within the local limits of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom) on 07.10.2009. Going by the decision of this Court in Philipose v. Chandy (2009 (4) KLT 305) and the Supreme Court in Shamshad Begum v. Mohammed (2009 (1) KLT 886) , that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction for the court at Vaikom. I do not find reason to transfer the case as requested. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner if identity of drawer of the cheque is not disputed, to request learned Magistrate to exempt him from personal appearance temporarily or permanently as circumstances warranted and if any such request is made learned Magistrate will consider the request in proper manner. With the above observation this petition is dismissed. Transfer Petition(Crl.)27/2010 3 Crl.M.A.No.2268 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks