IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3987 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.2309/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P)LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SANJOS TOWERS,OPP.K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, SHORANUR ROAD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL CLERK K.K.SUBASHKUMAR. S/O.MR.KRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS,RESIDING AT PULINELLI, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE: --------------- 1. JAINC.G.,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, THIRUVARA ROAD, NEAR THIRUVARA TEMPLE KIZHAKKENCHERRY P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 3987 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant and first respondent the accused in a private complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad alleging that first respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate as per order dated 4/10/2008 directed the complaint to be returned for presentation before proper court. The order is challenged in the revision. As the complaint was dismissed before issue of process, as provided under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mechanically followed the decision of this court in Santhoshkumar.M.S v. Mohanan.K.C & others (ILR CRRP 3987/08 2 2008(3) Kerala 303) without taking note of the contentions of the revision petitioner in paragraph 6 of the complaint to the effect that accused handed over the cheque at Palakkad and the transaction had taken place at the branch office of the complainant at Palakkad and bankers of the complainant was also within the limits of Palakkad town North Police Station and therefore the court has jurisdiction to try the case, learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. 4. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate reads; “ The cause of action for the complaint arose outside the jurisdiction of this court, so the complaint is returned for present in the proper court. In light of the ratio held in ILR 2008 part 3 Kerala 303.” A reading of the order shows that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not applied his mind at all either to the pleading or the facts or the law laid down in Santhoshkumar.M.S case (supra). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to note the decision of the Apex court in Bhaskaran vs. Balan (1999 (3) KLT 440) CRRP 3987/08 3 and see whether any of the five components of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has arisen within the jurisdiction of the said court. This court has not stated in Santhoshkumar's case that if the accused is not residing within the jurisdiction of that court, court has no jurisdiction to try the case. If any of the five components stated in Bhaskaran's case had taken place within the jurisdiction of that court it has jurisdiction to try the case. When it is pleaded that transaction was taken place within the jurisdiction of that court and the office of the complainant is within the jurisdiction of that court and notice as provided under Section 138(b) was sent within the jurisdiction of that court it cannot be said that the court has no jurisdiction to try the offence. Order dated 4/10/2008 passed by the learned Magistrate is therefore illegal. 4. The revision is allowed. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in C.M.P.2309/08 is set aside. Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to conduct proper enquiry in the complaint and proceed in accordance with law. Original complaint along with original affidavit CRRP 3987/08 4 produced in the revision petition containing the endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the affidavit be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before that court on 4/2/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.