HASSAN Vs. AMBALI HAMSA @ A. HAMSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C.C. No. 1014 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Perumbavoor is the appellant in this appeal. It was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of Ext.P1 cheque dated 07.07.2005 allegedly issued in consideration of an earlier borrowal of a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/ - made by the accused from the complainant. According to the complainant, the borrowal was from the work site of the complainant at Kolencherry and that too by instalments on three occasions and the total amount borrowed was Rs. 4,75,000/ - and Ext.P1 cheque dated 07.07.2005 was issued at the residence of the complainant at Perumbavoor. The cheque is drawn on the Melmuri branch of the Oorakam Service Co -Operative Bank, Malappuram. The cheque was given to the complainant's bank namely State Bank of Travancore, M.O.S.C, Medical Mission Branch, Kolencherry for collection. The cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank namely, Melmuri branch of the Oorakam Service Co -Operative Bank, Malappuram. The reason for the dishonour was that the payment was stopped by the drawer. Ext.P3 is the intimation given by the collecting bank at Kolencherry to the complainant at Perumbavoor. Ext.P4 is the statutory notice dated 02.08.2005 sent by the complainant's lawyer at Perumbavoor. Ext.P5 acknowledgment card shows that the accused received Ext.P4 notice on 04.08.2005 at Oorakam in Malappuram District. Ext.P6 is the reply sent by the advocate of the accused at Malappuram to the complainant at Perumbavoor. What is stated in the reply is that the complainant had lost a signed blank cheque on 15.06.2005 and he had given a stop memo to the bank. The accused denied the alleged borrowal as well as the execution of the cheque in favour of the complainant. The complaint was filed on 31.08.2005.

(2.) THE learned Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Perumbavoor as per the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2008 hold that that court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or try the complaint and also entered the merits of the case and acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. It is the said acquittal which is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) THE only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the finding recorded by the court below that it has no territorial jurisdiction, is sustainable or not.