IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIONS No 76 and 77 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
SHIVAJIBHAI
Versus
ASHWINKUMAR NANDLAL MASHRANI
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR DT SONI for Petitioners
MR PV HATHI for Respondent No. 1
Mr M A Bukhari, APP for Respondent No. 2
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of decision: 08/04/97
COMMON JUDGEMENT
These two Criminal Revision Applications are
preferred against the order dated 21.1.1984 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lathi, District
Amreli, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the
accused petitioners’ application for rejecting the
complaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
2.It may be stated that initially, by order dated
30.8.1982, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lathi,
returned the complaint to the complainant on the ground
that the said court has no jurisdiction as the
transaction had taken place at Unjha, District, Mehsana.
These Revision Applications were filed against the said
order before the Sessions Judge, who accepted the same
and referred the matter back to the JMFC, Lathi. The
petitioners preferred Revision Applications before this
Court which were registered as Criminal Revision
Application No. 1296 and 1297 of 1983. These Revision
Applications were, however, withdrawn with liberty to
raise the question of jurisdiction before the JMFC. The
learned JMFC rejected the application by a non-speaking
order.
3.I have heard the learned Advocate for the
applicants There is an allegation of criminal
misappropriation and of criminal breach of trust. It is
not in dispute that the transaction has taken place at
Unjha. There is nothing in the complaint to show that
any part of the transaction took place outside the
jurisdiction of Lathi. The learned Magistrate has not
considered this aspect of the case. Thus, in my view, in
view of sub-section (4) of section 181 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the court of JMFC has no jurisdiction to
entertain the said complaint.
4.In view of the aforesaid, both the Criminal
Revision Applications – 76/84 and 77/84 are allowed and
the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lathi dated
21.1.1994 is quashed and set aside in both the Revisions.
The complaint may be returned to the complainant for
presentation before the appropriate court.
Rule made absolute in both the Applications.
…