IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 73 of 2008 -------------------------------- ST.1963/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- SAJI LUKOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, KONIL MUSIC, 44/1144, MAPRANI BUILDING, PULLEPPADI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. E. SAREESH, AGED 25, PROPRIETOR, MAHADEVA CINEMA, ERNAKULAM, EDAYAPURATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.JOHN VIPIN FOR R1 SMT.S.A.SHERLY FOR R1 SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ T.P.(Crl.) No.73 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2009 ORDER This Transfer Petition is preferred with a prayer to transfer S.T.No.1963 of 2004 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court or any other Magistrate Court at Ernakulam. The Transfer petitioner is the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am not going into the merits of the case for the reason that it is not necessary for the disposal of this transfer petition. 2. Learned counsel for the transfer petitioner would contend that in the light of the decision of this Court the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur would have no jurisdiction and that in the general convenience of the parties or the witnesses Section 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked and transfer be done. 3. So far as the first point is concerned, it is a question that he can raise and that can be decided by the court where the matter is pending. Raising a question of jurisdiction T.P.(Crl.)No.73 of 2008 2 is not a ground for transfer is well settled by catena of decisions. So far as the next point is concerned, the only point I find is that the accused is a resident of Ernakulam and therefore most probably he wants the case to be tried at Ernakulam to suit his convenience. What is contemplated is the convenience of the parties or the witnesses. Certainly if there was jurisdiction and there was convenience the complainant would have preferred the case only before the Ernakulam Court and not before Thrissur Court. He is the person who is serious in prosecuting the case against the accused. There are no other materials to show that it will cause inconvenience to the witnesses. Therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the case and therefore the transfer petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vns