MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by accused Munnalal and is directed against the order of the special Judicial (Railway) Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 5th March, 1963 overruling the accused's objection to the competence of the Magistrate to try the case. The petitioner challenged the same order in a revision before the Court of Session, jodhpur, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his Judgment dated 15th may, 1963 upheld the order of the Railway Magistrate, and dismissed the revision.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the revision may be briefly stated as follows: one Chandanmal ,of Ladnun boarded Jodhpur Mail at Delhi on the night intervening 10th and 11th July, 1962, his destination being Ladnun. He had an aluminium box containing jewellery with him which he kept in his bedding. During the course of Journey, he went to sleep and woke up when tha train was stopping at Loharu Railway Junction; looked for his bedding and found It missing. On enquiry from the fellow travellers he learnt that some person had just got down at Loharu Junction platform and he might have taken away his bedding. The complainant got down at the Railway Station and searched for the man but could not find him. He made no report at Loharu Railway Police Station but continued the, journey by the same train upto Ratangarli. At Ratangarh ha lodged a report in writing, to the Railway Police alleging specifically that a theft had been committed by some one between Railway Stations Rewari and loharu. This report was sent to the Railway Police, Loharu for investigation. The report, however, was not entertained by the Police having jurisdiction over Loharu Junction. The Station House Officer, ratangarh, however, himself commenced investigation. Later on some alleged stolen ornaments and jewellery were recovered at the instance of the petitioner and other co-accused at Etawah, Allahabad and jubalpore between 6th and 15th of August, 1962. The Government railway Police Ratangarh then submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioner in the Court of Railway Magistrate, Jodhpur, on or about 16th November, 1962 under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE accused petitioner by his application dated 4th March, 1963 raised an objection that the Railway Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try and take cognizance of the case against the petitioner as neither the offence of theft nor the offence of receiving stolen property was committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The Railway Magistrate accepted the factual position but relying upon the provisions of Section 183, Criminal Procedure Code, overruled the petitioner's objection and held that he has jurisdiction to try the case. The Additional Sessions judge has also arrived at the same conclusion on a consideration of the combined effects of Sections 181 Sub-section (3) and Section 183, Criminal Procedure Code.