Shri John Sebastian Dias vs State of Goa

N. A. Britto, J.—Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant who is the Complainant in C. C. Nos. 11/2004 and 12/2004. By impugned Orders dated 12-9-2007 the learned J.M.F.C., Sattari has ordered that the cases be presented before learned J.M.F.C. at Panaji because the subject cheques were issued upon South Indian Bank Limited, Panaji Branch. The Respondent No.2/Accused who is duly served has chosen to remain absent. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Complainant and the Accused are both residents of Valpoi within the jurisdiction of the learned J.M.F.C., Sattari. He further submits that both carry on business within the said jurisdiction. He also submits that notice to the Complainant was issued through an Advocate at Sattari and therefore the Accused was bound to make payment to the Complainant at Sattari. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned J.M.F.C. could not have returned the complaint to be presented before the learned J.M.F.C. at Panaji.

Since the Complainant and the Accused are permanent residents of Valpoi and otherwise carrying on business at that place, it would be otherwise convenient for both, in case the cases are tried by the J.M.F.C. at Valpoi.

That apart, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant submits that the issue involved is covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another( AIR 1999 SC 3762). Even otherwise, the issue is also covered by the unreported Judgment of this Court dated 2-11-2007 in the case of Smt. Nutan D. Prabhu and another v. Ravindra V. Kenkre in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2007. In view of the above, the applications succeed. The impugned Orders are hereby set aside and the learned J.M.F.C., Sattari is hereby directed to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law.