IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 657 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2011 IN CMP.637/2010 IN ST.215/2010 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- BALAJI V.M., AGED 43 YEARS, 228, DR. RADHAKRISHNA ROAD(W), TATABAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 012. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. CAPSTOCKS & SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., HAVING IT'S REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC 28/1786, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSULTANT-LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE, SRI. P.UNNIKRISHNAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.657 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, aggrieved by the order dated 17-02-2011 in CMP No.637/10 in ST No.215/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-X, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the learned Magistrate over ruled the preliminary objections raised by the revision petitioner regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, preferred this revision petition. 2. I have heard Smt. K.S.Sudha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have carefully perused the order impugned. 3. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that as evident by Annexure A1 acknowledgment the cheques in question were issued at Coimbatore in the branch office of the complainant and therefore, the present court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is also the submission of learned counsel that the learned Magistrate is wrong in holding that the above petition is a belated one, since according to the learned counsel Crl.R.P.NO.657 OF 2011 2 the above petition was moved before the commencement of the trial. 4. I am unable to sustain the above contention. In paragraph 4 of the order impugned the learned Magistrate has specifically found that specific case pleaded in the complainant is that the alleged cheques were issued by the accused at the registered office of the complainant company at TC 28/1786 Thakaraparambu Road, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. It is on the basis of the above averment in the complaint and on the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant, the court took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused. According to the revision petitioner the cheques in question were issued at Coimbatore as indicated above. In order to substantiate the above contention the learned counsel invited my attention to Annexure-A1 document. I have carefully perused Annexure A1 document. It is a letter allegedly issued by the accused to the Manager, Capstocks & Securities, Siddhapudur, Coimbatore. The letter is dated 21.1.2008 whereby it can be seen that there is an assertion that he had given two cheques as margin amount and towards the last of the said letter it is also written 'please find enclosed the Crl.R.P.NO.657 OF 2011 3 above cheques as margin'. On the right side top of Annexure A1 it can be seen that there is seal impression showing as “ for Capstocks and Securities(India), Pvt. Ltd. and dated 21-1-2008 (sd/-)”. From Annexure A1 it cannot be said that the cheques in question were issued in Coimbatore. There is also no endorsement to the effect that the cheques in question were received in Coimbatore directly from the complainant. There is nothing to show that the cheques in question received by any of the authorised agency of the complainant. No name or designation of the person who allegedly received the cheques are given. It is also a fact that the contents of the above letter and the claim based upon the said letter is not substantiated in the court below. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the by the learned Magistrate has observed that according to the complainant the cheques in question were issued in the head office of the complainant at Thiruvananthapuram. But regarding the issuance of the cheque and the place of the issuance etc. the accused has raised a dispute. If the said dispute is correct it is for the accused to substantiate the same during the trial. But at the time of taking cognizance the learned Magistrate is bound to go through the averments that contained in the complainant so Crl.R.P.NO.657 OF 2011 4 to satisfy himself that he specify he has got jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. So in the light of the facts regarding the issuance of the cheque and the claim of the complainant and the courter claim or the pleadings of the accused, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in interfering with the order of learned Magistrate. 5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the findings of the learned Magistrate that the petition is belated is incorrect. From the order impugned it is crystal clear that at least the revision petitioner had appeared before the court on 25-10-2010 that too after issuing warrant against him. The above fact would show that the complaint was filed much earlier and process were issued prior to the warrant issued by the court. The revision petitioner failed to appear before the trial court in time. Even though, the accused appeared before the trial court on 25-10-2010 no petition like the present one filed before that court at the time of his appearance. If the court has no jurisdiction, the question regarding the jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest stage as laid down by this court 2010 (4) KLT 598. According to me the learned Magistrate is perfectly correct and legal in holding that the petition is belated one. Crl.R.P.NO.657 OF 2011 5 In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm