SAGHIR HASSAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding of commitment made by a magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, to the Court of Session, obviously at Patna on the following charge : That you, on or about the 27-7-1960 to 9-8-1960 at Dhillon Transport Agency, Laharfara Varanasi fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine a certain document to wit--truck Receipt No. 7560, which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it, to be a forged document ..........."

(2.) It has been argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Shamsul ilassan, appearing for the petitioner, that on the charge, as it stands, the criminal courts at Patna have no jurisdiction to try the case he cause the petitioner happens to be a resident of Varanasi and the alleged offence is said to have been committed at Varanasi situate within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

(3.) There were certain goods of the complainant carried from Patna City to Varanasi by trucks belonging to Dhillon Transport Agency, which has its office at Patna City and another office at Varanasi. The petitioner happens to be the delivery clerk at the Varanasi office. The allegation is that the goods to which this case relates were carried by a truck of the Dhillon Transport Agency and the truck receipt No. 7560 was delivered to the complainant at the Patna City office. The said goods were entrusted to Raja Ram and Buxi Singh for being carried to the office of the Dhillon Transport Agency at Varanasi. The further allegation is that a truck receipt was forged and it was by using that forged receipt that the petitioner Saghir Hassan allowed the delivery of the goods to a wrong man. So far as it appears from the order of commitment of the learned magistrate, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The commitment order, as it is, does not disclose whether the receipt, ON the basis of which the delivery of the goods had been taken, was in fact forged by the petitioner or used by him at any other place than Varanasi. The charge framed discloses that it had been used at Varanasi. If this be the only allegation, there appears to be no doubt that the Patna Courts can have no jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioner. On the authority of a decision in the case of Mt. Bhagwatia v. Emperor, ILR 3 Pat 417 : (AIR 1925 Pat 187), it has been urged by learned counsel for the (petitioner that the commitment proceeding should be quashed, when it does not disclose that any part of the offence, with which the petitioner is charged, was committed within the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna. The position has, however, since the amended provisions of Section 207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, changed. This new section provides for commitment of an accused to the Court of Session even without examination of all the evidence which might be led on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the provisions of Section 207-A, the inquiring magistrate can now commit an accused to the Court of Session even on the report of the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 674: