S F RICH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mr. Rashid Ahmad filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the district of Meerut against Mr. Rich, Manager of the French Motor Car Company, Delhi, for an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the defendant the question of jurisdiction was raised and both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have decided it in favour of the complainant. What was complained of was this. The complainant had negotiations with the defendant for the purchase of a lorry of which the body was afterwards made at Meerut. The entire lorry with the body was delivered to the complainant at Meerut when ha made over to the driver of the lorry for Mr. Rich a cheque for a sum to cover the price of chassis and insurance not only for the chassis but for the body as well. When the lorry happened to be burnt it was discovered that the body costing Rs. 500 had not been insured by the defendant who was alleged on these allegations to have committed a breach of trust with respect to the money which he received through his driver at Meerut by a cheque. The cheque was drawn on the Dehra Dun branch of the Imperial Bank and was cashed at Delhi.

(2.) The learned Judge has held that the Meerut Court had jurisdiction both under Section 179 and Section 181(2), Criminal P.C. 8. 179 runs as follows: When a parson is accused of a commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or triad by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued.

(3.) The learned Judge has argued that the thing was done in Delhi by Mr. Rich in omitting to insure the body of the lorry, though, according to the allegation of the complainant, he had received money for such insurance also. The doing of the thing brought into play the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, but the consequence which was the loss by the omission of insurance to the complainant was suffered by the complainant in Meerut, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Meerut Court did arise. To meet this contention the applicant Mr. Rich's learned counsel quoted the ruling in the case of Girdhar Das V/s. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 All. 77, by a single Judge of this Court. Personally I am not clear whether the learned Judge desired to rule that the provisions of Section 179 would not apply to a case of criminal broach of trust because there were certain other provisions under Section 181(2) which would apply to criminal broach of trust. I do not remember it to have been held in any case that the provisions under Chap. 15, are all separately independent of one another, and if one of the provisions apply another would not. It is apparent that if such was the desire of the learned Judge to make a pronouncement, he has made that pronouncement in conflict with a continuous opinion of this Court ever since 1896. The first case to which my attention has been drawn is that of Queen- Empress V/s. O Brien [1896] 19 All. 111. An employee of a company, the office of which was at Cawnpore, was charged with the offence punishable under Section 408, I.P.C. The complainant alleged that B being in charge on behalf of the company, at a place in Bengal, of certain goods belonging to the company and being ordered to return the same goods to Cawnpore, never did so, and failed to account for the goods or their value, to the loss of the company. On this allegation the learned Chief Justice held that the Court at Cawnpore had jurisdiction to inquire into the charge, because the consequence of B's acts, namely, the loss to the company, occurred in Cawnpore. Reference is given in the judgment to the provisions of Section 179, Criminal P.C.