IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3875 of 2009() ------------------------------ MP.1472/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------ PRADEEP KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.M.V.KRISHNANKUTTY A/303, PAYAL, ASHA NAGAR, KANDHVILA EAST, MUMBAI-REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-L.R.RAMACHANDRA WARRIER, RESIDING AT H.NO.169, SOUPARNIKA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KOCHI-36. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE, SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI AND SRI.PEARLY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. SMT.ARUNA UNNIKRISHNAN, 1917, 8 M.A.CROSS, IVTH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-75. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 3875 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 19th day of March 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in M.P. No. 1472 of 2009 which was a complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (the N.I. Act for short) involving a cheque for Rs. 15,50,000/-. The complaint was filed before the J.F.C.M. I, Aluva which is the Court within whose limits the collecting bank is situated. However, that Court refused to entertain the complaint and returned the complaint for presentation before the proper Court for the reason that the Court within whose limits the collecting bank is situated is not competent to entertain the complaint. The learned Magistrate relied on Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswants Neco Ltd. - 2001 (2) KLT 148 (SC) and Santhosh Kumar v. Mohanan - 2008 (3) KLT 461. 2. Reliance placed on Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Crl.R.P. No. 3875 of 2009 -:2:- Jayaswants Neco Ltd. (supra) was really out of place since in that case the Supreme Court was concerned about the expression “bank” occurring in clause (a) of the proviso to Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 to hold that the “bank” referred to therein is not the collecting bank but the drawee bank. That decision has not in any way overruled the decision in Bhaskaran v. Balan-1999 (3) KLT 440 (S.C.) in which it has been categorically laid down by the Supreme Court that the Court within whose limits the collecting bank is situated is also entitled to entertain a complaint and try the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The other decision relied on is Santhosh Kumar v. Mohanan - 2008 (3) KLT 461 which is a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. That decision cannot have the effect of overruling or altering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhaskaran v. Balan. Hence, the Court below was not justified in returning the complaint on the ground that that Court lacks Crl.R.P. No. 3875 of 2009 -:3:- territorial jurisdiction. Since the private complaint was returned at the pre-cognizance and pre-process stage, there is no need to hear the accused in this Revision Petition. The impugned order is set aside and M.P. No. 1472 of 2009 shall stand restored to file and shall be disposed of in accordance with law by the Court below. This Revision is disposed of as above. I place on record my appreciation to the valuable assistance given by Adv. Smt. Dhanya P. Asokan, the amicus curiae appointed by this Court. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR,JUDGE. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge