RAJESH MARTIS Vs. M. MOHAMMED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was the complainant in C.C. No. 40 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Kasargod. The above C.C. alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') against the 1st respondent was originally instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, and subsequently it was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Kasaragod. By order dated 20/11/2014, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint to the petitioner/complainant to be presented before the proper court in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [ : 2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)].

(2.) THE above complaint was filed on the allegation that the accused borrowed from the complainant an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for his business purpose and thereafter, in discharge of the said liability, he had issued a cheque drawn on the Corporation Bank, Padavu, Mangalore. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection through the Ednad Kannur Service Co -operative Bank Ltd., it was dishonoured on the reason of 'insufficiency of funds'. Thereupon, the complainant issued notice to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount; but the accused failed to pay the amount.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order for fresh trial, the evidence had to be let in again. When the matter came up before the learned Magistrate, the counsel for the accused pointed out that the cheque in question was drawn on the Corporation Bank, Padavu, Mangalore and the said bank had dishonoured the cheque for want of sufficient funds and in view of the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [ : 2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)], the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured alone will get jurisdiction to trial the case. The court below accepted the said contention and passed an order returning the complaint to the petitioner so as to file the same before the proper court. The legality of the finding whereby the court below returned the complaint for filing before the proper court, is under challenge.