ARUN RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What does the expression 'trial' mean and signify when that expression was employed by the Division Bench in paragraph-19 of Thressiamma v State of Kerala, 2010 4 KerLT 598, where their Lordships held that a dispute regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate before whom he is prosecuted should be raised by the accused at the earliest - at least before starting 'trial'

(2.) This is the point that arises for consideration in this revision petition which has been referred to the Division Bench as per order dated 7.12.2010 of a learned Judge (Justice V.Ramkumar) who felt that the decision if literally construed would lead to difficulties. His Lordship the Chief Justice has directed that the matter be placed before us, conscious of the fact that both judges who rendered the decision are available. We are hence proceeding to consider the matter notwithstanding the fact that we feel that ideally the question could have been considered by the Bench which rendered the decision in Thressiamma.

(3.) A brief reference to facts may be relevant. The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint against him was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 19.10.2006. Cognizance was taken on the same day. The case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (IV) Kochi by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequent to the non-appearance of the petitioner/accused before the learned Magistrate, warrant of arrest was issued against him.He appeared before the learned Magistrate on 6.3.2010. To record the plea, the case was adjourned and the plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was ultimately recorded on 23.6.2010 and after recording the plea of not guilty, the matter was adjourned to 17.8.2010 for evidence of the complainant. On that day, the accused filed a petition questioning the maintainability of the prosecution before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction, it was contended. That petition was heard and the impugned order was passed on 27.10.2010. The objection was over ruled and it was held that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.