ANJILLATH MOHAMMAD KUNHI Vs. K K ABDUL KAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the points to be considered in all the above M.Cs. are one and the same the above Crl. M.Cs. are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Petitioner in all the above M.Cs. questions the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur, to entertain a complaint laid for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in the above C.Cs. within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargode and the complaints ought to have been filed before the said Magistrate. According to the petitioner, the cheques in question were issued by him within the jurisdiction of Kasaragode and the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur, will not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaints merely because the cheques were later presented by the respective complainants with their bankers at Kannur.

(3.) I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In Muraleedharan v. Pareed, (1992) 1 Ker LT 59 : (1992 Cri LJ 1965), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the cause of action arises at the place where the cheque was issued or delivered or the place where the money was expressly or impliedly payable. There can be no doubt that when a cheque is issued, by implication, the amount is payable by the drawer to the payee through the bankers of the said payee. In short, the amount due on the cheque is impliedly payable by the drawer through the bankers of the drawee. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued can also entertain a complaint. The learned Judge has extended the jurisdiction of the criminal court to say that a complaint can be laid even in a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was issued. The learned Judge held that the cause of action can be the place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located and it can also be a place where the cheque was issued or delivered. The court within whose jurisdiction any of the above mentioned places falls has also jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In fact the above judgement itself shows that the complaint can be laid at the place where the cheque was dishonoured and also at the place where the cheque was issued, which means that the complaints laid in these cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur has jurisdiction to try the offence.