Objection to territorial jurisdiction of trial court should be raised before adducing evidence, examining witnesses: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that objections concerning territorial jurisdiction of trial court should be raised at the earliest, before adducing evidence or examination of witnesses [Nishad Mathew v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice A Badharudden said that a court has the power of inherent jurisdiction to dispose of a matter if the question of jurisdiction is not raised at the beginning of the trial.The single-judge relied upon various precedents and on Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to hold that when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction or ground of irregularity, an order or a sentence awarded by a competent court cannot be set aside unless a prejudice is pleaded and proved.“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 prejudice is pleaded and proved, which would mean failure of justice. It is also the settled position that the objection regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction must be raised, at the earliest at any rate, before adducing evidence/examination of witnesses in the Court,” the Court said. .The Court was considering a revision petition moved by the accused in a case before a Magistrate court for trying cases under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. The petitioner later sought transfer of the case, arguing that according to Section 142(2) of the NI Act, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery is the Court that has jurisdiction as the cheque was presented for collection through the account maintained by the complainant at Union Bank of India, Kalamassery branch.The Magistrate Court for NI Act cases allowed the transfer but an Additional Sessions Court transferred the case back to it. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court..The High Court noted that the petitioner had conceded the jurisdiction and accordingly the trial was completed by the NI Court. It was only then that the petitioner raised contentions regarding territorial jurisdiction. Since adducing of evidence and examination of witnesses had already been completed, the Court held that transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained.Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the NI Court to deliver judgment within a period of one month..The petitioner was represented by advocate Sojan Macheal. The respondents were represented by advocates KS Sumeesh, CK Anwar, and Senior Public Prosecutor TR Renjith..[Read Order]