Where Accused Conceded Jurisdiction & Trial Completed, Question Of Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Raised: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that where the accused has himself conceded the jurisdiction, and the trial has been completed, the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the fag end of the trial and transfer of the case on this ground cannot be sought for. The Court in this light, taking note of precedents, observed that as per Section 462 of the Code of Criminal...
The Kerala High Court recently held that where the accused has himself conceded the jurisdiction, and the trial has been completed, the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the fag end of the trial and transfer of the case on this ground cannot be sought for.
The Court in this light, taking note of precedents, observed that as per Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it would be clear that when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction or ground of irregularity of procedure an order or a sentence awarded by a competent court could not be set aside unless a prejudice is pleaded and proved, which would mean failure of justice.
Justice A. Badharudeen, further observed that,
"as per the settled position of law, the objection regarding question of territorial jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest and at any rate, before adducing evidence or examination of witnesses in the Court".
As per the factual matrix, a complaint was lodged by the complainant (also the second respondent herein), under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that the accused (the revision petitioner herein) committed offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva in the year 2015. This case was subsequently transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act cases), Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Court). The trial was completed before the N.I. Court on 25th June 2019, when the accused appeared before it and conceded its jurisdiction. However, at this juncture, it was contended by the accused that the N.I. Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case, since the cheque was presented for collection through the account maintained by the complainant at Union Bank of India, Kalamassery branch and therefore, under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the jurisdiction ought to be exercised by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery (JFCM, Kalamassery). Accordingly, the case was transferred on 3rd December 2019.
This was assailed by the complainant by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which set aside the transfer, and directed the N.I. Court to dispose the case within a period of three months, on reference to Section 462 Cr.P.C. and the settled position in decisions such as Arun Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala & Anr.(1987), State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gounder (2017), and Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & Anr. It is against this decision of the Sessions Judge that the instant revision petition had been filed.
Before the High Court, it was contended by Advocate Sojan Micheal on behalf of the accused/revision petitioner, that the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the transfer of the case is illegal.
On the other hand, the counsels for the complainant/respondent, Advocates K.S. Sumeesh, C.K. Anwar, and Senior Public Prosecutor T.R. Renjith contended that the accused was merely attempting to delay the proceedings and the pronouncement of judgment in the said matter.
In the instant case, the Court noted that the trial had been completed before the N.I. Court, when the accused had himself conceded its jurisdiction, and the question of territorial jurisdiction was only raised towards the end.
"Since the law is settled that, if the Court has otherwise jurisdiction or the Court does not lack inherent jurisdiction, the Court has the power to dispose of the matter wherein, the evidence already recorded, since the question of jurisdiction was not raised before start of trial", it was observed.
On these grounds, the Order of the Sessions Court setting aside the transfer of the matter to the JFCM Kalamassery was confirmed. The N.I. Court was also directed to pronounce the judgment within 1 month of receipt of the copy of the instant order, after hearing both sides.
Case Title: Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511