IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 587 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.699/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- BINOY, AGED 33 S/O.CLEMENT @ THANKACHAN PUTHENVEETTILE, MANAKKODAM,THIRUMALABAGOM P.O. THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. BALACHANDRAN AGED 56 S/O. THANKAPPAN PILLA, RADHAVILASAM, KUTHIYATHODE VILLAGE THURAVOOR P.O, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.587 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 ORDER There is no representation for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has been heard. The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. The petitioner/accused complains that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha has no territorial jurisdiction and only the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cherthala can be said to have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent, in response to a specific query, concedes that the complaint has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha on the sole ground that the notice of demand was issued through a counsel at Alappuzha. It is now trite that the place of residence or office of the counsel who issues the notice of demand cannot confer jurisdiction on the court at that venue to hold trial. The Crl.M.C. No.587 of 2008 2 question has been considered in detail in the decision in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 68]. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant accepts that the matter can be sent over to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cherthala having jurisdiction in the matter. 4. Though there is a prayer for quashing of proceedings, I am satisfied, that it is not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the complaint. It would be sufficient if the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha is directed to forward the complaint to the learned Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. 5. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha shall forthwith make over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cherthala having jurisdiction. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-