IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 277 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- CMP.1716/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- JOY, S/O. JOSEPH, VANIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA KARA AND VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K), SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT-NO PARTY --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. "CR" P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.277 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in CMP.No.1716/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pala is the revision petitioner. He preferred the complaint against the second respondent for prosecuting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.10.2003 dismissed the complaint with the following observations: “No witness examined to prove that the transaction took place at Pala, so as to have jurisdiction for this court. Both complainant and accused are residing within the jurisdiction of Erattupetta court. The cheque in question was drawn at Poonjar Federal Bank and was sent for collection through Co- operative Bank, Poonjar. Both these banks are also within the jurisdiction of Erattupetta Court.” Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.277 of 2004. -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the averments in the complaint and the affidavit accompanying the complaint. Going by the averments in the complaint as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the complaint, I am convinced that there is specific mention that the transaction in dispute occurred at Milk Bar Hotel at Pala, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. 3. In the above circumstance, I find that the transaction has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed. When the pleadings in the complaint and the averments in the affidavit in support of the complaint specifically aver that the transaction in dispute occurred within the jurisdiction of the court before whom the complaint was filed, the trial court should have given reliance to such averments and should have taken cognizance. It should not have insisted the complainant to examine witness and give further proof in respect of the place where the cause of action arose, regarding which there is specific pleading in the complaint and averments in the affidavit. In the light of the Crl.R.P.No.277 of 2004. -: 3 :- pleadings in the complaint and averments in the affidavit, dismissing the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage, stating that no witness was examined to prove that the transaction occurred within the jurisdiction of the court is a hyper technical approach resulting denial of justice. The learned Magistrate should have given due reliance to the pleadings in the complaint and the averments in the affidavit and shall have taken cognizance. Contrary order is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court, which shall dispose the complaint in accordance with law. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 13.9.2010. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-