IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2767 of 2009() ------------------------------ ST.2694/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- M.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MULLANKUZHIYIL HOUSE NADAKKAV P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SAMEER RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. K.V.ABRAHAM, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU, MULANTHURUTHY, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2767 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 07-08-2009 on C.M.P.No.7122 of 2009 in S.T.No.15 of 2007 and 2694 of 2006 (on joint trial) on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolenchery. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against petitioner for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the transaction took place at Kadamattom which is within the jurisdiction of the court below. Petitioner filed a petition challenging jurisdiction of that court. In the meantime respondent No.1 was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked in evidence. Learned magistrate dismissed the petition. Hence this revision. Learned counsel contends that even as per the evidence of respondent No.1, he had no shop at Kadamattom during 2006 when the transaction is alleged to have taken place. That however is a matter for evidence. Issue regarding jurisdiction is to be primarily decided on the averments in the complaint. Averments in the complaint gave jurisdiction for the court below. It is also to be remembered that notice was issued at Kadamattom at a time when the court having local jurisdiction over that place could entertain the complaint. Objection to jurisdiction should have been taken up and Crl.R.P.No.2767 of 2009 2 decided at the earliest point of time. In this case evidence is already recorded. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the order under challenge at this stage. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/