IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2868 of 2009() ------------------------------ REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT IN ST.NO.740/08 OF JFCM-VI, EKM ----------------------------------------------------------- FOCUZ AUTOMOBILES, DOOR.NO.KC XL/1758, T.B.ROAD, SHENCOTAH ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001 A UNIT OF FOCUZ CORPORATION PVT.LTD., FOCUZ TOWERS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANAND KUMAR T.A., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ANIRUDHAN T.K.,LEGAL SECTION IN-CHARGE,FOCUZ CORPN BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR IST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN ST.NO.740/08 OF JFCM-VI, EKM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.NAZARUDHIN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE MAINTHEEN KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SHAN SHALU MOTORS, SHAN MANZIL, ASARIMUKKU, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM - 690 519. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SANIL KUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P.No.2868 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April 2011 O R D E R The complainant in S.T.No.740/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court VI, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner, who filed the complaint against the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st respondent appeared on receipt of summons issued from the court and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, evidence was let in by the complainant. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The 1st respondent was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was adduced and the case was posted for hearing to 18/5/2009. On that day, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent filed a petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint. The revision petitioner filed objection. After hearing both counsel, the learned Magistrate, as per order dated 21/5/2009, returned the complaint to present before proper court on the finding that, that court has no jurisdiction to try the case. That Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 2 order has been challenged by the complainant/revision petitioner before this Court in this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The petition was filed by the accused/1st respondent before the lower court with the contention that the said court has no jurisdiction to try the case for the reason that the statutory notice issued by the complainant before filing the complaint was received by the accused at Kollam, the place of residence of the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Shamshad Begum v. Mohammed [2009(1) KLT 886 (SC)] submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and it requires interference of this Court. In the said decision, it was held as follows: “Offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are components are as follows: (1) Drawing of the cheque; (2) Presentation of the cheque to the Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 3 bank; (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It is not necessary that the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under S.138 of the Act.” 5. In the present case, the disputed cheque was presented for collection before the Corporation Bank, Veetteel Chambers, M.G.Road, Kochi 682 016, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate's court, Ernakulam and before that court the complaint was presented. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint, S.T.No.740/2008 is restored back to file, if it is not taken back by the complainant till this date and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the proceedings after giving further opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence if so requested and to dispose the complaint in Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 4 accordance with law. 7. The complainant and accused shall appear before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Ernakulam on 30/05/2011. The learned counsel for the complainant/revision petitioner shall take steps, if so required, to ensure the appearance of the accused before that court. 8. This Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 5 Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 6 Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 7 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 8 Crl.R.P.No.2868/09 9