Saji Lukose vs E. Sareesh on 12 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(Crl.).No. 73 of 2008()


1. SAJI LUKOSE, AGED 34 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. E. SAREESH, AGED 25,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.T.JOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :12/02/2009

 O R D E R
                          M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                  ------------------------------------------
                       T.P.(Crl.) No.73 of 2008
                  ------------------------------------------
             Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2009

                              ORDER

This Transfer Petition is preferred with a prayer to

transfer S.T.No.1963 of 2004 pending before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court or any other Magistrate Court at Ernakulam.

The Transfer petitioner is the accused in a case filed under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am not going

into the merits of the case for the reason that it is not

necessary for the disposal of this transfer petition.

2. Learned counsel for the transfer petitioner would

contend that in the light of the decision of this Court the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur would have no

jurisdiction and that in the general convenience of the parties

or the witnesses Section 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure may be invoked and transfer be done.

3. So far as the first point is concerned, it is a

question that he can raise and that can be decided by the court

where the matter is pending. Raising a question of jurisdiction

T.P.(Crl.)No.73 of 2008
2

is not a ground for transfer is well settled by catena of

decisions. So far as the next point is concerned, the only point

I find is that the accused is a resident of Ernakulam and

therefore most probably he wants the case to be tried at

Ernakulam to suit his convenience. What is contemplated is the

convenience of the parties or the witnesses. Certainly if there

was jurisdiction and there was convenience the complainant

would have preferred the case only before the Ernakulam Court

and not before Thrissur Court. He is the person who is serious

in prosecuting the case against the accused. There are no other

materials to show that it will cause inconvenience to the

witnesses. Therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction under

Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the

case and therefore the transfer petition is dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN,
JUDGE
vns