IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 28 of 2010() --------------------------- TO TRANSFER CC.560/2008 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM TO THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MRS.SUDHARANI,W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN ALIAS UNNI, RESIDING AT KUNAPPALLY HOUSE , AKALOOR PO, OLD LAKKIDI, PALAKKAD - 679 302. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.P.YACOOB, S/O.UNNIAVARAN HAJI,RESIDING AT KANGATTU PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,VADAKKUNGARA PO, MANKADA (VIA), MALAPPURAM- 679 324. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. FEROZ K.M THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J -------------------------------------------- T.P.(Crl.) NO. 28 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010. O R D E R The petitioner is accused in C.C.No.560/2008 on the file of the Court of the JFCM, Malappuram for offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2. The prayer is to transfer the case to the JFMC, Palakkad, reason being that petitioner who is a resident of Akalur in Palakkad District finds it difficult to travel to the place a trial at Malappuram and she is also facing threat from respondent No.2 and his men. Learned counsel says that if the case is transferred to the JFMC, Palakkad, it will be convenient to the petitioner. Petitioner is being tried for an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Normally trial has to be conducted in the court where complaint is filed and cognizance is taken, transfer being only under exemptional circumstances. It is true that petitioner stated that she apprehends assault from respondents Not.2 and his men but, to order transfer on that ground the apprehension must be real and substantiate. I am not inclined to think that any such apprehension exists in this case. T.P.(Crl.).NO. 28 OF 2010 2 So far as the distance factor is concerned the petitioner is a resident near Ottapalam and I am not pursued to think that the place of a trial at present is so far away a place that it is inconvenient for her to appear before the court concerned. After all the offence involved is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Normally no question of identification of the drawer of the cheque is involved. If that be the situation it is open to the petitioner to approach the court concerned and request for exemption, permanent or temporary as circumstance warranted. I make it clear that if such a request is made before the court concerned, learned Magistrate shall sympathetically consider the request taking into account the necessity for personal appearance of the petitioner, before court at the time of trial. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm T.P.(Crl.).NO. 28 OF 2010 3