IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3857 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------------- CMP.NO.2311/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P).LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SANJOS TOWERS, OPP. K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, SHORANUR ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL CLERK, K.K.SUBASHKUMAR S/O.MR.KRISHNAN, 26 YEARS RESIDING AT PULINELLI, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR. K.S. BABU, SMT.N.SUDHA. RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNNIKRISHNAN.K.R. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, KARIYAMKATTIL HOUSE, PANAMANNA SOUTH, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD (DIST), (WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 3857 OF 2008 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 O R D E R The revision is the complainant in C.M.P. No. 2311 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. The complaint is one alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was filed before the trial court on 16-8-2008. On 4-10-2008 it was returned with the following order; “ 4-10-2008 complaint returned. The cause of action for the complaint arose outside the jurisdiction of this court, so the complaint is returned for present in the proper court. In light of the ratio held in ILR 2008 part 3 Kerala 303” 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order this revision petition was preferred. 3. Going by the complaint it is seen that there is some vagueness regarding the jurisdiction of the court before which complaint is to be filed. Now the revision petitioner had filed Crl. M.A No. 8892 of 2009 seeking an order to amend para.6 of the complaint. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and public prosecutor that petition is allowed by order dated 5-10-2009. The proposed amendment would give clarity CRL. R.P. NO. 3857 OF 2008 2 regarding the jurisdiction of the court to which the complaint is to be filed. In the above circumstances, while allowing the revision petition, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court along with a copy of Crl. M.A No. 8892 of 2009. The learned Magistrate may allow the revision petitioner/complainant to carryout the amendment and to have a decision thereafter on merits. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE pkk