V B POONACHA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is ah accused in CC. No.331 of 1970 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court) Bangalore, contended, even before the trial commenced, that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The lower Court rejected that contention reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to agitate the question of territorial jurisdiction after the evidence came to be recordded in the case and in case such agitation of the question was justifiable. This petition is directed against this order. The facts necessary may be briefly narrated as follows: The petitioner was a sales assistant in an electric shop syled as "Prakash Electricals" run by K. C. Uppal, CW.1. CW.1 had deputed the petitioner to Kanpur and Ludiyana, amongst other places, on the business of the firm, CW2. Anandakumar at Kanpur had to pay certain sum to the firm. He paid an amount of Rs.100 to the petitioner at Kanpur on 9-5-1963. A receipt was issued by the petitioner. CW.3 Shivakumar Uppal at Ludiyana had to pay certain amount to the firm and he paid Rs.360 on 18-4-1968 to the petitioner at Ludiyana. The petitioner issued a receipt for that amount also. As the said amounts were not accounted for by the petitioner to the firm of CW.1 at Bangalore, CW.1 complained and a charge sheet alleging an offence under S.408 of the IPC. was filed against the petitioner in the said Court. On receiving the copies of the documents furnished to the petitioner under S.173(4) CrlPC. and when the trial was about to be commenced, the petitioner raised objection on the point of jurisdiction of the Court.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the material put forward by the prosecution shows that entrustment of the amounts belonging to the firm of CW. 1 at Bangalore, was made to the petitioner at two places which are Kanpur and Ludiyana, that no material has been produced to indicate as to where, according to the prosecution, the petitinner committed the offence of criminal breach of trust; that the prosecution has not alleged that this offence was committed by the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I Court) at Bangalore; and that therefore, the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in a Court either at Kanpur or at Ludiyana in regard to the said two amounts because it was at those places that the petitioner had been entrusted with the said funds. Under S.181(2) CrlPC., which deals directly with jurisdiction of Courts in dealing with offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, it is laid down that the jurisdiction is with the Court within the jurisdiction of which entrustent of the funds is alleged to have taken place or with the Court within the jurisdiction of which the said two offences are alleged to have been committed.

(3.) The argument on behalf of the State is that the petitioner was, according to the prosecution, entrusted with these sums belonging to the firm of CW.1 in his capacity as a sales assistant and he was required to account for these sums to the office of the firm at Bangalore, but he has failed to so account and as such non-accounting is the consequence of the act committed by the petitioner and therefore, the said Court in Bangalore has jurisdiction. Reliance was sought to be placed on the provisions found in S.179 Criminal Procedure Code.