SEWAK RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sewak Ram filed a complaint in the court of ACJM, Beawar for offence under Sec. 406 and 420 Penal Code alleging that non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 were the office bearers of Lions Club, Ajmer. Sewak Ram was a resident of Beawar and used to relay stage programmes. These three persons entered into an agreement on 6.3.88 at Beawar under which it was agreed that Sewak Ram would pay Rs.17,000.00 as a goodwill for using the banner of Lions Club in order to stage the music programme of Anup Jalota and entire sale proceed of the show would be received by him. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.1000.00 was paid to non-petitioner No. 2 in 11.3.88 and Rs.1000.00 to non-petitioner No. 3 on 14.3.88. Balance of Rs. 15,000.00 was paid on 7.4.88 to the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3. They had taken the ticket books for selling to the various members of the club and to other persons and were required to pay the collections to Sewak Ram. But they did not account for the sale-proceeds of the tickets and fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated the collection to their own use add thereby cheated Sewak Ram. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Sewak Ram on 29.6.88 and then sent the complaint to the police for investigation. Vide his impugned order he held that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. The petitioner filed a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar who dismissed the same. Now Sewak Ram has come under Sec. 482 Cr.RC. to this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 as well as learned PR

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner cited N.C. Sippi & Anr. Vs. Manjeet Singh and another, WLN (UC) 1974 page 152 and submitted that in a similar case the High Court held that the offence under section 420 Penal Code could have been tried either at the place where the fraudulent misrepresentation or deception took place or where as consequence thereof the complainant was induced to deliver the property. As such, even if the misrepresentation or deception night have taken place at Bombay, since the complainant was induced to deliver a substantial part of the money against the delivery of publicity materials and two prints at Jaipur, the accused could have been tried either at Bombay or at Jaipur. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of both the courts below are erroneous. He has also submitted that in case learned courts were of the view that the Magistrate at Beawar had no jurisdiction, the complaint should have been returned.