SAT NARAIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A theft was committed on a running train between Kanpur and Lucknow at Amausi in the Lucknow District It was discovered that the door of a goods wagon was opened -An investigation took place, and it was discovered that some persons had been seen removing bales of cloth from the railway line to Again town within the Unnao district. Thereupon the prosecution Was started in the Lucknow district. The accused objected that according to the prosecution itself the offence had been committed in the district of Unnao, that they were also residents of the district of Unnao and that consequently the trial should be at Unnao. The learned Magistrate rejected this plea on the ground that Section 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gave him jurisdiction. Section 183 Criminal Procedure Code is as follows -

(2.) ACCORDING to this section the offence may be tried by any court through or into the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offender or the thing in respect of which the offence was committed passed in the course of that journey. In the present case the thing in respect of which the offence was committed dropped at Again before the Lucknow district was reached, therefore it did not pass through or into the Lucknow district, With regard to the offender there is no evidence to show that he passed into the Lucknow district. In these circumstances the case should be tried in the Unnao distinct. I accordingly order that the case be transferred to the Court of the railway Magistrate of Unnao for trial. The stay order, dated October 6, 1950, is vacated.