IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:16.02.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P.Nos.24285 and 24286 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 P. Saravanakumar .. Petitioner in both the petitions/Accused Versus Jai Sakthi Knit Embroidaries rep by its Prop.M.Murugesan D.No.4/A45, College Pudur Road Veerapandi Village & Post Tirupur-5 rep by his Power of Attorney Agent M. Madeshwaran .. Respondent in both the petitions/Complainant Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for a direction as stated therein. For petitioner in both : Mr.V. Vijayakumar For respondent in both : Mr.N. Manokaran C O M M O N O R D E R These petitions are filed seeking for a direction to transfer C.C.Nos.121 and 120 of 2009 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur. 2. The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the cases are pending in CC Nos.C.C.Nos.121 and 120 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Sankari. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of action took place only at Tirupur and the respondent/complainant simply by issuing legal notice, had chosen to file the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari and therefore, seeks transfer of the case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent/complainant issued legal notice from Sankari since his office is at Sankari, however, fairly conceded that all other transactions arose at Tirupur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. On careful consideration, it appears that apart from issuance of notice, all other transactions including cause of action arose at Tiruppur. In a case reported in (2009) 1 SCC 720 (Harman Electronics Private Ltd and another vs National Panasonic India Private Limited), in paragraph 20, the Apex Court held as follows: "20. Indisputably all statutes deserve their strict application, but while doing so the cardinal principles therefor cannot be lost sight of. A court derives a jurisdiction only when the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The same cannot be conferred by any act of omission or commission on the part of the accused. A distinction must also be borne in mind between the ingredient of an offence and commission of a part of the offence. While issuance of a notice by the holder of a negotiable instrument is necessary, service thereof is also imperative. Only on a service of such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days thereafter, the commission of an offence completes. Giving notice, therefore, cannot have any precedent over the service. It is only from that view of the matter that in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd Emphasis has been laid on service of notice." 6. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the cases in C.C.Nos.121 and 120 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Sankari are liable to be transferred to Tirupur. 7. Accordingly, the cases in C.C.Nos.121 and 120 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari are directed to be transferred for trial to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari is directed to transfer the case records to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur, forthwith. 8. With the above direction, these petitions are ordered. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. sr Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari 2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur + 2 ccs to Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate SR No.10358 + 2 ccs to Mr. V.Vijayakumar, Advocate SR No.10024 AR(CO) SR/23.2.2010 Crl.O.P.Nos.24285 and 24286 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/