IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3169 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.665/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- RT.REV.DEVARAJ BANGERA @ SAMUEL DEVARAJ BANGERA, S/O. SAMUEL BANGERA, AGED 64 YEARS, BISHOPS HOUSE, BALMATTA, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN-575 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. 671121 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. GODWIN CHANDRAKANTH DALBANJAN, S/O. EDWIN DALBANJAN, ANANDI COMPOUND, BEERANTHBAIL, KASARAGOD.671121 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3169 of 2011() ------------------------------------ APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- ANNEXURE I. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KASARAGODE. ANNEXURE II. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NNEXURE III. COPY OF THE CHARGE FRAME ON 26.4.2011 ANNEXURE IV. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE V. COPY F THE REPLY NOTICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRUE CPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3169 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 O R D E R The sole accused in C.C.No.665/2010 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod is the petitioner. Charge sheet was filed against him alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs.463 and 468 IPC. 2. The allegation is that, a birth certificate purported to have been issued by the Kasaragod Municipality was forged and produced before the de facto complainant at Mangalore in Karnataka State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of CJM, Kasaragod or within the judicial district of Kasaragod. The statement given by the Officer of the Municipality would show that no such certificate was issued from that Municipality. It is not a case where the certificate originally Crl.M.C. No.3169 of 2011 -: 2 :- issued by that Municipality was subsequently forged by correcting the date, month or year of birth of the petitioner. Since the certificate was produced before an officer/authority situated in Mangalore, that court may have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the petitioner contends. This aspect was not considered by the learned CJM presumably because this aspect was not urged before that court. Hence, the learned CJM, Kasaragod will, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, enter a finding as to the territorial jurisdiction of that court to take cognizance of the aforesaid case. The learned CJM will pass order on that point as early as possible and will issue appropriate directions, if any in the matter. Till then, the physical presence of the accused need not be insisted. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt