- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Bijnor recommending that the trial court's order assuming jurisdiction to try the case, be set aside.
(2.) THE complainant Devendra Kumar is a partner in a cloth firm of Najibabad in the district of bijnor, styled as Yogendra Kumar Devendra Kumar, while the firm of the accused works as commission agents in cloth business at Delhi. The complainant's case was that it had been agreed upon between the two firms that the accused firm was to purchase 60 bales of cloth from the delhi Cloth Mills at Delhi as agents of the complainant and deliver the same to the complainant's firm at Najibabad; that the accused was to render accounts to the complainant's firm at naji-babad, that in consequence of the agreement the accused had first received the sum of Rs. 6,000/-by means of a draft at Delhi, whereafter 63 bales; had been dispatched by them from delhi to the complainant at Najibabad under a railway receipt "to self" through the Bharat Bank, bijnor, which Bank was directed by the accused to pass the railway receipt to the complainant on receiving payment of a sum of Rs. 72,000/-; that out of the total receipts of Rs. 78,000 /- which had been received by the accused the latter had rendered accounts for Rs. 65,0007- only but did not render accounts for the remaining amount of Rs. 13,000/- and that this sum was criminally misappropriated.
(3.) ON behalf of the accused it was not disputed that they as commission agents had received the sum of Rs. 6,000/- by means of a draft at Delhi and had also received another sum of Rs. 72,000/-through the Bharat Bank, Bijnor, after they had sent 63 bales of cloth under a railway receipt, and that this subsequent amount of Rs. 72,000/-had been received under a 'hundi' for which the accused had sent a letter dated 18-1-1949. In that letter, the accused-firm had written to the complainant's firm that the former had sent a 'hundi' to be honoured by the complainant's firm and that the complainant was to pay the amount of the 'hundi' to the Bharat Bank, Bijnor. The case of the accused was that out of the amounts, received by them they had purchased and handed over cloth worth Rs. 64,184/11/- to the complainant's firm and the remaining sum of Rs. 12,815/5/- which had been left with the accused had been credited in part payment of some previous account. In the trial court two objections were takes or behalf of the accused: The first was that the court at Bijnor had no jurisdiction. And the second was that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and could not be taken cognisance of by the criminal court. The trial court held that the bijnor court had jurisdiction and that the matter was not of a civil nature. Upon revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge has been of the opinion that the courts at Bijnor have no jurisdiction to try the case. The Sessions Judge has therefore referred the matter to this court with the recommendation that the trial court's order assuming jurisdiction to try the case be set aside.;