RAMANUJAN NAIR Vs. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision petition arises in rather special circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is the husband and the first respondent the wife. On the allegation that the petitioner married a second time when the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was still subsisting, the first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under S.494 of the Penal Code. The second wife and three others who were said to have abetted the second marriage were also made accused persons. The complaint was filed before the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court. Trivandrum. All the prosecution witnesses were examined; and on 12th September 1969 the Magistrate discharged accused persons 2 to 5 and adjourned the case for defence evidence of the petitioner to 13th February 1970. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence. It was on that petition that the impugned order was passed, the Magistrate holding that the petition was belated and that the court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. The revision petition has been placed before a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court since he felt that the question involved was one of importance.

(3.) Three decisions have been brought to our notice by the counsel appearing in the case. Two of them are decisions of the Supreme Court Narumal v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1960 SC 1329 ) and Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1961 SC 1589 ). And the third decision is the decision of this Court by Govinda Menon J. in M. N. Adhikari v. Food Inspector, Kunnamkulam Municipality 1965 KLT 548 .