PHILIPOSE Vs. CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised for a decision in this revision is whether the mere fact of residence of the complainant in a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") at a particular place would confer territorial jurisdiction on the court within whose territorial limits that place is situated. According to the learned counsel for petitioner/complainant, the court within whose territorial limits complainant is residing has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint while counsel for the accused would contend that mere fact of residence cannot confer jurisdiction.

(2.) Petitioner/complainant preferred a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta (in Pathanamthitta District). In the complaint, complainant is described as Managing Partner of a private financing institution situated at Kottayam (in Kottayam District). His residential address is given as at Cherukole in Ranni Taluk (in Pathanamthitta District). He is represented in the complaint by his Power of Attorney Holder who is also a resident of Cherukole. It is averred in the complaint that complainant is the Managing Partner of a private financing institution at Kottayam, accused availed a loan from the complainant and in repayment of that debt he issued a cheque drawn on a bank situated at Kottayam. The cheque was presented for collection through the bank of the complainant situated at Kottayam but it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Complainant caused statutory notice to be issued to the accused through his counsel. Accused received the notice but there was no payment and hence the complaint. In paragraph six of the complaint it is stated that cause of action for the case arose at Pathanamthitta Village wherefrom notice demanding amount covered by the cheque was issued which is within the local limits of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence made over the case for trial to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. Accused on appearance disputed territorial jurisdiction of that court to try the case. Learned magistrate heard both sides on the question of jurisdiction, observed that except the issue of legal notice all remaining part of the transaction leading to completion of cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Kottayam and hence in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Ahammedkujtty Haji v. State of Kerala, 2007 1 KerLT 68 none of the courts in Pathanamthitta District could have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Accordingly complaint was returned to the complainant under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") for presentation before proper court. That order is challenged in this revision (in the meantime complainant has presented the complaint before a magistrate at Kottayam who I am told, has taken the case on file).

(3.) Learned counsel for complainant would contend that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 7 SCC 510, the court within whose territorial limits the place of giving notice or place of residence of the complainant is situated has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint take cognizance of the offence and make over the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta for trial. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/accused would contend that the place of issue of statutory notice or mere residence of complainant cannot confer jurisdiction on the court in view of the decision of this Court in Ahammedkutty Haji referred and the decision of the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd., 2009 1 RCR(Cri) 458.