Jurisdictional objection after summons must first be decided by the trial court when factual issues need determination.

Where the accused questions the trial court's territorial or other jurisdiction after summons, the proper course is to raise that objection first before the trial court by an application setting out the relevant facts. The trial court should hear both sides and, if necessary, record evidence before deciding the jurisdictional issue and proceeding further. Direct recourse to the higher court against the summoning order is not the appropriate first step when the objection turns on factual matters. The jurisdictional challenge must therefore be determined on merits by the trial court before the case continues.

---

---

Issues: Whether, when the accused questions the jurisdiction of the trial court after issuance of summons, the proper course is to seek determination of that objection before the trial court rather than invoke higher court interference with the summoning order.

Analysis: A challenge to territorial or other jurisdiction ordinarily depends upon facts. The proper course is to move the trial court with an application setting out the relevant facts, so that the court may hear both sides and, if necessary, record evidence before deciding the jurisdictional issue and proceeding further. Direct recourse to the higher court against the summoning order is not the appropriate first step in such cases.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection should be raised before the trial court for decision on merits before further proceedings continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional challenge that turns on facts must first be decided by the trial court on an application by the accused, after hearing the parties and, if necessary, taking evidence, before the case proceeds further.

---