G R KARVE Vs. S D KULKARNI DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision applications arise from the order of the learned Addl. C.P.M. 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, dated 26th March, 1973 passed in cases Nos. 149/S of 1972 and 150/S of 1972 holding that the Bombay Court has no jurisdiction to try the offences in question and he accordingly dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The petitioner -complainant had filed the above cases against the respondents-accused under sections 420, 403, 405 I.P.C. and sections 146 and 147 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner in this complaint, running into over 9 pages has made various allegations against the respondents in respect of the payments made by him on 12th June, 1966 of the sums of Rs. 51/- and Rs. 2000/- and of another transaction in the month of October 1966 in respect of the payments of Rs. 350/- and Rs. 2000/- in connection with his becoming a member of Shri Gurudatta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (prop.), Dombivali. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of these allegations for the purpose of these applications. The petitioner also alleged that he paid the above amounts at Bombay at the office of the accused at 21, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. The respondents by an application dated 4th October, 1972, prayed that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the above complaint as according to them the main transaction took place at Dombivali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thana. The petitioner filed his say to these applications and he repeated his earlier allegations that the amounts were collected by the respondents from him in Bombay by cheques.

(3.) On the basis of this material, the learned Addl. Chief Presidency Magistrate came to the above conclusion. I have gone through the order of the learned Addl. Chief Presidency Magistrate and the reasons given by him in holding that he had no jurisdiction, are not convincing. He had drawn certain presumptions and inferences on the material mentioned above. He was of the view that the above payments must have been made after the whole transaction was finalised. It seems to me that there was no justification in drawing this inference without recording the evidence. He also observed that it equally appeared clear to him that if the plot of land was at Dombivali then the Advocate like the complainant would never have finalised the transaction without first seeing the situation of the said plot itself and hence the whole transaction could not been finalised, in the first meeting and from the first meeting to the actual payment, there must have been some more meetings at Dombivali to finalise the transaction. He was also pleased to observe that it appeared probably that it (transaction) must have taken place at Dombivali where the plot in question is situated.