Thresiamma Varkey vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2017
6. Going by 2010 (4) KLT 598 I find that the issue
referred to the Division Bench of this court was whether
the Magistrate Court having territorial jurisdiction over a
place from where notice as provided under proviso (b) to
Section 138 has been issued would get jurisdiction to try
a case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Then the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 23 of
the said judgment and submits that the finding is that
drawee bank would not get territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. Going by 1999 KHC 614 it is
very clear in my mind that the Supreme Court had used
the word "drawee" bank and no interpretation is
necessary to understand what was intended by the
Supreme Court Particularly when expression is plain and
unambiguous. When the Supreme Court has laid down
Crl.R.P. No.2019 of 2012 6
the proposition without any ambiguity, this Court is
inclined to follow the decision of the Supreme court
under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore,
I reject the argument advanced by the learned the
counsel for the Revision Petitioner and I confirm the
order under challenge.