P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.551 of 2008 residing at Thiruvananthapuram, is alleged to have owed a sum of Rs.66,500/- to the second respondent who is having registered office at Mumbai and branch office at Kochi. In discharge of that liability, a cheque dated 13.3.2006 drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, Thiruvanathapuram was issued. When presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The second respondent, through a lawyer at Pathanamthitta, caused a notice demanding discharge of the liability. But the liability was not discharged. With these allegations and stating that the second respondent had caused the lawyer notice from Pathanamthitta within the territorial limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, Annexure-1 complaint under Ss.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

2. Alleging that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta would not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the sole reason that notice was caused from Pathanamthitta by the lawyer residing within the limits of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and that the cognizance was taken without jurisdiction, the accused filed Crl.M.C. under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to quash Annexure-1 complaint.

3. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.313/08 was prosecuted by the second respondent therein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta alleging offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is with an allegation that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of that liability, the revision petitioner issued a cheque drawn on Federal Bank, Valakam Branch, which was marked as Ext.P1 for the said amount and that when sent for collection, Ext.P1 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner is staying at Kottarakkara and the second respondent is staying at Elamad. Both places are within the territorial limits of the Judicial Magistrate of the first Class, Kottarakkara. Notice demanding discharge of the liability was caused by a lawyer from his office at Pathanamthitta situated within the territorial limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. The second respondent preferred the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta alleging offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stating that since the notice was caused from Pathanamthitta, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance, issued process and the revision petitioner was sent for trail since he pleaded not guilty. No objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction was raised. After due trail, the revision petitioner was found guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to the second respondent. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.422 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The appeal was subsequently made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, by judgment dated 29.10.2007, whole confirming the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, the Revision Petition was preferred.

5. Inter alia the revision petitioner had taken up a contention that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta would not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason that notice was caused from Pathanamthitta by the lawyer residing within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta.

6. When Revision Petition came up before a learned Singl