The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in S.T.No.143/06 on the file of JFCM-II, Haripad, challenges the order dated 5.2.07 passed by the said Magistrate returning the complaint presumably under section 201 Cr.P.C. for presenting a same before the proper court having jurisdiction within two weeks.

2. The above private complaint was filed against the first respondent accused alleging the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque bearing No.509004 drawn on the Pallickal Branch of the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- allegedly issued by the accused to discharge his liability towards a loan said to have been availed by him from the revision petitioner/complainant.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took the case on file as S.T.No.143/2006. On receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance. The trial of the case was later on commenced. After the evidence in the case was over, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for arguments when the first respondent accused, for the first time, raised a contention that the said Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint since the place where the revision petitioner complainant is residing and the place where the cheque was presented and the place where the accused is residing are not within the local limits of the JFCM-II, Haripad. The objection regarding jurisdiction was raised on the basis that merely because the place of issuance of notice to the accused was within the local limits of the Haripad court would not clothe that court to entertain and try the case. Admittedly, the statutory notice was issued from a place within the local limits of the jurisdiction the JFCM-II, Haripad.

4. The learned Magistrate relying on the decision reported in Ahammedkutty Haji Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 638] and Hariharaputhra Sharma Vs. State of Kerala [2003 (8) KLT 875] took the view that the decision of the Apex court in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sakaran Vaidhyan Balan and another [1999 (7) SCC 510] had been distinguished in the later decisions of this court and accordingly came to the conclusion that since both the accused as well as the complainant are residing outside the jurisdiction of the court below and the cheque was presented as well as dishonoured at places outside the local limits of the court below and the drawee bank was also located beyond the limits of the court below, that court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint merely because the lawyer who issued the statutory notice had his office at Haripad within the local limits of the court below. Accordingly, the complaint was returned with a direction to present it before the proper court having jurisdiction. It is the said order, which is assailed by the revision petitioner.

5. Even though the first respondent accused was duly served, he has not chosen to enter appearance or oppose this revision.

6. First of all, going by the decision of the Apex court in Bhaskaran's case, if the giving of notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment took place within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court when the complaint was filed, then that court can entertain and try the complaint. Even assuming that the court below did not possess the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reasons stated by that court, it is pertinent to note that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was raised only at the fag end of the trial and that too for the first time when the arguments were heard. Even though there is no provision in Cr.P.C. analogous to one contained in section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the preponderance of judicial opinion is to the effect that if an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has not been raised at the earli