IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 21 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.1172/2006 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- THRESIAMMA R.J. ANANNWAYA, HOUSE NO.B-21(A), MASJID ROAD, MUKKOLA, KACHANI P.O.-695013,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL), H.D.F.C. HOUSE, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-15. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.Ptn.(Crl.)No.21 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, a 54 year old woman, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1172 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam, seeks the transfer of the said case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The main ground on which the transfer is sought is that the petitioner is an old and sickly woman who finds it difficult to travel all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam to appear before the Ernakulam Magistrate on all the dates of posting of the case. She would also contend that a part of the cause of action for the offence arose within the jurisdiction of the Thiruvananthapuram court justifying the request for transfer. 3. The question is not as to whether the Thiruvananthapuram court has also got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The question as to whether complaint entertained by the Ernakulam court is with jurisdiction or not. Tr.Ptn.No. 21 of 2008 2 The petitioner has no demur to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Ernakulam court. She only seeks the transfer of the case from Ernakulam court to Thiruvananthapuram court to suit her convenience. 4. Being a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, I see no reason why the learned Magistrate should insist on the personal appearance of the accused, since no question of identity arises for consideration. On the petitioner filing a petition before the Ernakulam Magistrate seeking personal exemption, she shall be exempted from personal appearance even from trial, unless her personal appearance is found inevitable at any stage of the trial such as examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C or at the time of pronouncing judgment. Otherwise, the personal appearance of the petitioner need not be insisted by the learned Magistrate. This petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge