Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAYIL SWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS versus T.K.ABDUL JAMAL, S/O MOIDU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MAYIL SWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS v. T.K.ABDUL JAMAL, S/O MOIDU - Crl MC No. 2195 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12499 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2195 of 2007()

1. MAYIL SWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. T.K.ABDUL JAMAL, S/O MOIDU,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C. NO.2195 OF 2007

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. The complaint was entertained. Cognizance was taken. Thereafter, invoking the powers under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C., the learned C.J.M. made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Manjeri. The petitioner raised an objection before the learned C.J.M., Manjeri, on the ground that in the light of the decision in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68), the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Manjeri, has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The learned C.J.M., by the impugned order, held that the said challenge against the jurisdiction is Crl.M.C. NO.2195 OF 2007 -: 2 :- without any substance and proceeded to turn down the challenge against the direction to make over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Manjeri.

2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The petitioner prays that the case may be directed to be retained before the learned C.J.M., Manjeri. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in Soman Achari v. Sabu Jacob (2006 (4) KLT 604), attempted to build up an argument that the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Manjeri, has no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Soman Achari v. Sabu Jacob (2006 (4) KLT 604), contends that the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is different from the jurisdiction to try a case and, in these circumstances, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Manjeri, though he may have jurisdiction to entertain complaint, cannot, in the light of the decision in Ahammedkutty Haji v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68), be held to have jurisdiction to try the complaint. Crl.M.C. NO.2195 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

3. I find absolutely no merit in the contention. The decision in Soman Achari v. Sabu Jacob (2006 (4) KLT 604) does not at all deal with the jurisdiction of a Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. to make over the case and the jurisdiction of such court to which case has been made over to try such case. Acceptance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner would knock the bottom out of the provisions of Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. and it will have to be held that unless the court to which the cases are made over under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. does also have territorial jurisdiction, such making over cannot be made. That obviously is not the law. Under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C., the C.J.M. has got the power to regulate the work within his District and make over cases to appropriate courts in his administrative discretion. That jurisdiction does not have anything to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which the case is made over to try the case. I am unable to see anything in Soman Achari v. Sabu Jacob (2006 (4) KLT 604) which would detract against the Crl.M.C. NO.2195 OF 2007 -: 4 :- jurisdiction of the learned C.J.M. under Sec.410 of the Cr.P.C. to make over the case to a court within his jurisdiction. The challenge raised against the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-3, is found to be without any merit. The same is turned down.

4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.