SUNDER LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for revision raises a question of jurisdiction in a case of criminal breach of trust against the applicant pending in the Court of the Sub- divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly.

(2.) The applicant Sunder Lal was the agent of Udainath Shah, who is the owner of a number of villages in the Bareilly district lying in various tahsils and including some in tahsil Baheri. A complaint was filed on his behalf against the applicant in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Baheri, charging the applicant with embezzlement of large sums of money which he is said to have collected in all the villages in the Bareilly District. The question is whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate, whose territorial jurisdiction is limited to Tahsil Baheri, had jurisdiction to try him for embezzlement of what might have been collected in villages situate in other tahsils. The proceedings having so far advanced that a charge has been framed against the applicant. It was some time after the charge was framed that the applicant took objection to the Court having jurisdiction in respect of all the sums alleged to have been misappropriated by him. That objection was overruled by the Magistrate, and an application in revision made to the Sessions Judge questioning the correctness of the Magistrate's view was unsuccessful. The present application for revision was then filed, and the correctness of the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in agreement with the Magistrate has been impugned in this Court. A learned Judge of this Court had the occasion to hear this case twice, and in view Of obscurity regarding certain material facts the asked for an explanation from the Magistrate who framed the charge. That explanation is now before me.

(3.) It appears that the applicant has been charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a gross sum consisting of five items, three of which were received by him in villages situate in tahsils other than Baheri. Item 4 is part of a larger sum received by him as rent paid by tenants in a number of villages situate in different tahsils including some in Baheri. He credited the major part of the sums thus received, but is alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 44 odd. Thus it cannot be said with certainty whether this sum is part of what he had collected from tenants of villages situate in Tahsil Baheri. It is equally doubtful whether it represents part of collections made in villages situate in tahsils other than Baheri. Item 5 is one of Rs. 1036 which was not actually received by the applicant from the tenants, but represents consideration of certain bonds which were executed by the tenants in lieu of arrears payable by them. The applicant is alleged to have obtained the bonds in his own name and not in that of his master. The process of reasoning by which this sum of Rs. 1036 is probably considered to have bean misappropriated by the applicant is that having become the creditor of the tenants to the extent of Rs. 1,036 it was his duty to have paid an equal sum to or to the credit of his master, and having failed to do so and having obtained the bonds, for himself he should be deemed to have misappropriated that amount. It is premature to consider the precise criminal liability, if any, of the applicant as regards this sum of Rs. 1036. At the present stage I merely assume that the complainant's allegation that Rs. 1036 was misappropriated is well founded. It is not disputed that the tenants who executed bonds in favour of the applicant were all from villages situate in Tahsil Baheri.