JUDGMENT
Choudhary, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this criminal reference, shortly stated, are these. The accused Chum Lal Begani booked at Gauhati (Assam) 123 chests, said to contain tea, in five consignments, to Howrah (West Bengal), the consignee being himself, but the consignments being endorsed in favour of different persons. In course of transit it was discovered at Jamalpur (Bihar) that 115 out of the 125 chests contained paddy husks in place of tea and the remaining 10 chests were found to contain rubbish tea and dust. The Jamalpur Government Railway Police submitted charge sheet against the accused before the Subdivisional Officer, Monghyr, who took cognizance of the case and transferred the same to the file of Shri S.N. De Judicial Magistrate First Class, for trial.
Before the Judicial Magistrate, question was raised as to the jurisdiction of that Court to try the case. It was submitted that the offence of cheating was not committed at Jamalpur and, therefore, the Magistrate at Monghyr had no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate agreed with the contention and submitted the records to the Sessions Judge, Monghyr, for favour of referring the matter to this Court for transferring the case either to Gauhati or to Howrah for trial of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr has, accordingly, referred the matter to this Court soliciting instructions.
2. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the stand taken by the accused was that the Magistrate at Monghyr had jurisdiction to try the case, and the stand taken by the prosecution was that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. In this Court, learned standing counsel, appearing for the State, took the stand that the case was triable by the Magistrate at Monghyr, which is contrary to the stand taken by the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate. Similarly, counsel for the accused changed the position and he took an objection that the case was not triable by the Magistrate at Monghyr, contrary to the stand taken by the accused at the trial. Be that as it may, it has to be seen, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Judicial Magistrate at Monghyr has jurisdiction to try this case.
3. From the facts stated above, it is manifest that the offence of cheating, if any, was committed at Gauhati from where, instead of tea, husks were despatched by the offender or where the endorsement of the consignments was made in favour of different persons. At Jamalpur, nothing was done except the discovery of the fact that the consignment contained husks, instead of tea, which showed that the offence of cheating had been committed.
4. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or fried by a Court within the local limits of whoso jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence; has ensued. In the present case, the offence of cheating that is said to have been committed by the accused was committed at Gauhati where, instead of tea, husks were booked in the consignments. The discovery of this fact at Jamalpur could not be said to be of any consequence which had ensued from the fact of cheating by the accused at Gauhati. In other words, no consequence ensued at Jamalpur in respect of the offence of cheating that was committed at Gauhati. It is, therefore, manifest that the Court at Monghyr, within whose jurisdiction Jamalpur lies, could have no jurisdiction to try the case.
5. The above view taken by me gains full support from a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Prayag Das Bhargava v. Daulat Ram, 16 Cri LJ 825: (AIR 1915 All 428(1)). In that case, the complainant was induced to part with his money at Meerut on the false representation that certain barrel contained certain amount of spirits, At Agra it was discovered that the barrel did not contain the amount of spirits that it had been represented to contain. It was held that the Magistrate at Agra had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the discovery of the alleged fraud at Agra after the goods were delivered could not be said to be a consequence which had ensued within the meaning of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
6. On a consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, along with the law on the point, I am of the view that the Judicial Magistrate at Monghyr has no jurisdiction to try this case.
7. The learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr may accordingly, be informed of this judgment.
Bahadur, J.
8. I agree.