STATE Vs. CHUNI LAL BEGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this criminal reference, shortly stated, are these. The accused Chum Lal Begani booked at Gauhati (Assam) 123 chests, said to contain tea, in five consignments, to Howrah (West Bengal), the consignee being himself, but the consignments being endorsed in favour of different persons. In course of transit it was discovered at Jamalpur (Bihar) that 115 out of the 125 chests contained paddy husks in place of tea and the remaining 10 chests were found to contain rubbish tea and dust. The Jamalpur Government Railway Police submitted charge sheet against the accused before the Subdivisional Officer, Monghyr, who took cognizance of the case and transferred the same to the file of Shri S.N. De Judicial Magistrate First Class, for trial. Before the Judicial Magistrate, question was raised as to the jurisdiction of that Court to try the case. It was submitted that the offence of cheating was not committed at Jamalpur and, therefore, the Magistrate at Monghyr had no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate agreed with the contention and submitted the records to the Sessions Judge, Monghyr, for favour of referring the matter to this Court for transferring the case either to Gauhati or to Howrah for trial of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge of Monghyr has, accordingly, referred the matter to this Court soliciting instructions.

(2.) Before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the stand taken by the accused was that the Magistrate at Monghyr had jurisdiction to try the case, and the stand taken by the prosecution was that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. In this Court, learned standing counsel, appearing for the State, took the stand that the case was triable by the Magistrate at Monghyr, which is contrary to the stand taken by the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate. Similarly, counsel for the accused changed the position and he took an objection that the case was not triable by the Magistrate at Monghyr, contrary to the stand taken by the accused at the trial. Be that as it may, it has to be seen, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Judicial Magistrate at Monghyr has jurisdiction to try this case.

(3.) From the facts stated above, it is manifest that the offence of cheating, if any, was committed at Gauhati from where, instead of tea, husks were despatched by the offender or where the endorsement of the consignments was made in favour of different persons. At Jamalpur, nothing was done except the discovery of the fact that the consignment contained husks, instead of tea, which showed that the offence of cheating had been committed.