IN RE: M.L. VERGHESE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions arising out of two different cases in which the petitioner, who was the accused in both the cases, was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat, under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The convictions, on appeal, were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar.

(2.) THE petitioner was running a bank called the Malabar Central Bank with its head office at Chowghat and a branch office at Orumanayur, both places being situated in British India. The charge against him in both the cases was that he received gold ornaments from different persons by way of pledge and after doing so, sub -pledged them for higher amounts to other banks. According to the prosecution, these amounted to acts of criminal breach of trust as in sub -pledging the jewels, and that for higher amounts, the petitioner must be deemed to have acted with dishonest intention. This view prevailed in both the Courts below. At the appellate stage, an objection was raised to the convictions on the ground that since the sub -pledging had been done by the petitioner with the Savings and Investments Corporation, Limited, at Trichur, which is situated in the State of Cochin, the British Indian Courts had no jurisdiction to try the accused. This objection is based upon the provisions of Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The material portion of Section 188 runs thus :

(3.) THE petitions are allowed and the convictions of the petitioner in both the cases and the sentences passed on him are set aside.