IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 658 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRL.MP.NO.4062/2010 IN CC. NO.605/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, AMBALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANU FRANCIS, AGED 35 YEARS, M/S.ST. MARY'S AGENCIES, EZHUKUMVAYAL, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MAVELI MARINE PRODUCT (P) LTD., VALANJAVAZHI, KAKKAKOM POST, ALEPPY, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MANAGER AND P.A. HOLDER HAREESH KUMAR, 670 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, ALONG WITH CRRP NO.660 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NOs.658 & 660 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. ORDER As these two revision petitions are arising out of similar orders from the same Magistrate Court and as the parties the question of law and facts are identical, these two matter heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. The grievance of the revision petitioner, who is an accused in six prosecution cases, for the offence punishable under Section 138 is that the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalappuzha has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial since there is no allegation and necessary facts averred in the complaint to constitute cause of action within the jurisdiction of the said Magistrate Court. 3. I have heard Sri. IEANS C.Chamakkala learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the above two revision petitions. I have also perused the orders impugned. 4. The learned counsel vehemently argued that in the complaint there is no averment or factual allegation to the effect that the transaction is taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Crl.R.P.NOs.658 & 660 OF 2011 2 Ambalappuzha and therefore, that court has no jurisdiction. 5. From the orders impugned it appears that the cognizance was taken in all the above prosecution cases, covered by the two revision petitions during the year 12-09 2006 and the accused appeared and his plea was recorded on 6.9.2007 and accordingly trial commenced and the court started to record evidence on 16.06.2008. As per the orders impugned it appears that the case was adjourned on several occasions for settlement or for evidence. Thus, it is only after two years the accused preferred the petition for return of the complaint on the ground of the question of territorial jurisdiction. 6. I have carefully considered arguments of the learned counsel. The learned counsel streneously argued that no where in the complaint or in the proof affidavit in lieu of Chief examination, the complainant has got any case that the transaction was taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Inviting my attention to paragraph 5 of the complaint learned counsel submitted that the version in the complaint is that the South Indian bank, Ambalappuzha Branch which is the bank of the complainant, that the collecting bank, situating within the jurisdiction of the present court and Crl.R.P.NOs.658 & 660 OF 2011 3 therefore, that court has jurisdiction. In the previous paragraph of the complaint the complainant has stated some details regarding the transaction etc. still then, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate there is no specific averment that the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of that court. According to me, that shall not be a ground to allow the prayer of the petitioner at this stage that too after the expiry of time more than 5 years, from the date of institution of the complaint. Certainly, on the basis of the evidence, if the revision petitioner is able to convince the court that there is no cause of action for that court to try the case, the consequence has to be faced by the complainant. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate himself has observed that the question as to where the actual transaction involved in the case can be clear only at the time of trial. It is also beyond dispute that the Chief affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination has already been filed in the year 2008 and the case is now stands posted for the cross examination of the complainant on 5.3.2011. Normally, substantial part of the trial will be over by the cross examination of the complainant or his agent. If that be so, as correctly observed by the learned Magistrate it is for the learned Magistrate to decide the question Crl.R.P.NOs.658 & 660 OF 2011 4 regarding the actual place of transaction and whether the court has got jurisdiction etc. on appreciation of the evidence and on the basis of the plea of the accused/revision petitioner. I have no hesitation to observe that as the case pertinent to the year 2006 the learned Magistrate will expedite the proceedings to dispose of the case at the earliest. If the petitioner preferred an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C for exemption, I am sure that the learned Magistrate will consider the same on merit and the petitioners physical presence will not be insisted, unless the same is inevitable. Subject to the above observation, these revision petitions are dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm