A single bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justice A Badharudden has held that the objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court should be raised at the earliest and before adducing evidence or examination of witnesses.

While relying on the earlier laws laid down in the cases of , [2012(1) Crimes 443], Arun Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala and Another, [1987(2) SCC 74], State of Karnataka v.Kuppuswamy Gounder and [2017(3) SCC 528], Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, the single bench held that " it is crystal 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. It is also the settled position that the objection regarding question of territorial jurisdiction must be raised, at the earliest at any rate, before adducing evidence/examination of witnesses in the Court. In the case on hand, the accused conceded the jurisdiction of the N.I.Court, Ernakulam and accordingly, trial was completed and the accused raised question of territorial jurisdiction at the fagant. 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."

The Kerala High Court passed the said order on a revision petitioner filed by the accused. It was argued by the counsel for the accused/revision petitioner before the Kerala High Court that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act cases), Ernakulam has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and when the said contention was raised before the N.I. Court, Ernakulam, the learned Magistrate transferred the case to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery on the finding that N.I. Court, Ernakulam had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said finding is perfectly in order
and the Additional Sessions Judge, as per order in Crl. R.P.No.16 of 2020 dated 08.11.2021 interfered in the transfer and thereby, directed the N.I. Court, Ernakulam itself to hear and decide the above case. The said order is illegal, is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner. 

The other side alleged that the accused is attempting to delay the trial and pronouncement of judgment by filing such applications disputing the jurisdiction.

Case Details:-

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2021
NISHAD MATHEW   ...REVISION PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF KERALA ...RESPONDENT

Read the Complete judgment on the link below:-

https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/Casedetailssearch/fileview?token=MjA0NDAwMDA3MTkyMDIxXzUucGRm&lookups=b3JkZXJzLzIwMjE=