BANWARILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1966-3-6
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 28,1966

BANWARILAL (SOLE PROPRIETOR BANWARILAL AND SONS) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.B.RAJU - (1.) ONE Banwarilal has been prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalol for an offence of cheating under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that he sent goods to a merchant at Kalol and the arrangement was that he should take 75% of the value of the goods from the branch of the Baroda Bank at Bareli on the production of a railway receipt and a bill. The prosecu- tion case was further that a false bill was presented by the accused and an-excess amount was taken from the said Bank by the accused. He is therefore said to be guilty of cheating. Even if the Bank of Baroda at Bareli be taken to be the agent of the complainant even then the offence of cheating would take place only at Bareli and not at Kalol because anything that was done at Kalol would amount to a false representation Any letter written to Kalol would amount to a false representation. It was not suggested in the complaint that any letter was written at Kalol making a false representation but it was stated that a false bill was produced at the Bank of Baroda at Bareli and an excess amount was recovered and that it amounts to cheating. In that case the offence can only be tried by the Bareli Court and not by the Kalol Court. Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application to the instant case. Sec. 179 Cr. P. C. reads as follows: 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 tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued. It cannot be said that the loss which the complainant suffered was at Kalol. His money was at the Bank of Baroda at Bareli and by a false representation that money was taken from the Bank of Baroda at Bareli. The loss if any accrued at Bareli. Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code has therefore no application.
(2.) THE charge in against Banwarilal is therefore quashed and it is held that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalol has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. THE revision application is allowed. Application allowed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.