IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3637 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.927/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- P.M.PHILIPOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, LOYAL BANKERS, CHERUKOLE, (PULICKATHARAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE). BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE ---------------------------- 1. KUNJUKUNJU DAVID, KONDOOR HOUSE, VELLOOR PO, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 SRI.KARJET KODUVATH FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3637 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the complainant and first respondent the accused in C.C.927of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. Revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate on 30.4.2007 directing return of the complaint for presentation before the proper court under Section 201 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the reason that the court has no jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. Learned Magistrate passed the order, based on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Ahammed Kutty Haji V. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 68). Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, relying on the decision of Apex Court in Bhaskaran V. Balan( 1999(3) KLT 440) argued that the components of an offence under Section 138 are i) the place where the cheque is drawn, ii)where the cheque is presented for encashment, iii) where the cheque was returned unpaid by the drawee bank, iv) the place from where notice was given in writing demanding the amount CRRP 3637/2008 2 covered by the dishonoured cheque and v) the place from where drawer failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. It was argued that when revision petitioner, the managing partner of the firm is residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque was demanded by sending a notice from the place of his residence, finding of learned Magistrate that the said court has no jurisdiction is not sustainable. Learned counsel pointed out that in the application filed by first respondent contending that the said court has no jurisdiction, revision petitioner had filed an objection whereunder it has been specifically contended that revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of that court and therefore that court has jurisdiction and this aspect was not considered by the learned Magistrate at all. It was also argued that when revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta and notice was sent demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque within the jurisdiction of the court, learned Magistrate was not justified in relying on the decision in Ahmedkutty's case (supra) and therefore the order is not sustainable. CRRP 3637/2008 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent argued that the complainant is the firm though firm was represented by the managing partner and as far as a partnership firm is concerned, the place of business is the place from where the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque could be demanded and if that be so, when admittedly the firm is situated within the jurisdiction of Kottayam courts and the entire transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of courts at Kottayam, by sending a notice from a place within the jurisdiction of Magistrate Court at Pathanamthitta, it will not get jurisdiction and therefore the order is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. 4. The order shows that Magistrate did not consider the question whether revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta and if so, by demanding the amount from a place within the jurisdiction of that court, one of the components constituting the offence has arisen and if court has territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, following the decision in Ahmmedkutty Haji's case(supra), learned Magistrate returned the complaint finding that except sending of notice, no other part of the transaction CRRP 3637/2008 4 has taken place within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and therefore it has no jurisdiction. The question whether revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of that court was not considered by the learned Magistrate at all. Learned Magistrate also did not consider the question whether revision petitioner, being the managing partner, is entitled to demand the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque at the place where he resides and if so whether the court has jurisdiction. As this aspect was not considered, the order dated 30.4.2007 is set aside. 5. Revision petition is allowed. C.C.927 of 2006 is remitted to learned Magistrate for fresh consideration. Learned Magistrate must consider whether revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. It is also to be considered whether revision petitioner is entitled to demand the amount from his place of residence. If revision petitioner is entitled to demand the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque from the place of his residence, then the decision in Ahammed Kutty Haji's case cannot be applied to the facts and learned Magistrate has to find that the court has jurisdiction. If it is to be found that revision CRRP 3637/2008 5 petitioner is not residing within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta or even if he is residing, he is not entitled to demand the amount from the place of his residence, then learned Magistrate can find that court has no jurisdiction. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose the petition before proceeding with the trial. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-