IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4009 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.622/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- RADHESHYAM GOGRAJ KEJRIWAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRATIK ENTERPRISES, A/51, SHANTI APARTMENTS, CHARKOP VILLAGE, KANDIVILI WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.K.MATHEW, S/O.KURUVILA, MANAGER, M/S.PRATIK ENTERPRISES, IV/109B, PUTHIYAKAVU, MATHILAKAM, PAPPINIVATTOM, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARUN SIMALIYA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRATHAM ENTERPRISES, B/37, SUMATIL NAGAR, S.V.ROAD, KANDIVILI WEST, MUMBAI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR - R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4009 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner lodged a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor alleging that first respondent committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as per order dated 18.10.2008 finding that the court has no territorial jurisdiction and directed return of the complaint for presentation before the proper court. The order is challenged in this petition filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel unsuccessfully persuaded me to take a different view than the one taken by this court in Santhosh kumar v. Mohanan (2008(3) KLT 461). Later he submitted that in view of the said decision, revision petitioner may be permitted to present the complaint before the proper court CRRP4009/2008 2 within a time to be fixed by the court. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Abdul Azeez Nazeem v. Radhakrishnan (2000 (2) KLT 23) it was argued that even when Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case complaint can be returned for presentation before the proper court within a time fixed by the court. It is submitted that learned Magistrate though directed return of the complaint for presentation before proper court, did not fix a time for presentation and so it may be contended later that the complaint is barred by time and therefore this court has to fix a time limit for presentation. 3. This court in Abdul Azeez's case (supra) had considered the question whether a court, when returns a complaint for presentation before the proper court, for want of territorial jurisdiction to try the case, could fix a time limit for representation of the complaint and held that CRRP4009/2008 3 court though cannot try the case can fix a time for representation. In view of decision of this court in Santhoshkumar's case (supra),I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three weeks time from today for presenting the complaint before the proper court. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006