EMPEROR Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, First Class, District Muzaffarnagar, The applicant Kishore Lal was the complainant in a cast of cheating brought by him against At ma Ram and Krishna Lal. The complainant is a partner in a firm known as Uggar Sen Parshotam Das, carrying on business of commission agents at Muzaffarnagar. His story was that, on 14 September 1933, the accused met him at Dehra Dun and desired to purchase through, his firm 10 "bijaks." The complainant insisted on payment of 50% of the price, but the accused assured him that, payment would be made as soon as the "bijaks" were purchased. The transcation was to be completed at Muzaffarnagar. The complainant phoned to his firm informing them of the bargain and assuring them that payment would be made by the accused as soon as the "bijaks" were purchased. The accused made payment by a cheque on the Allahabad Bank, Dehra Dun branch. The bijaks were purchased by the complainant's firm at Muzaffarnagar; but the cheque was dishonoured on presentation on the ground that the accused had no account with the Dehra Dun Branch of the Allahabad Bank.

(2.) The defence was that it was the complainant who approached the accused with an offer of purchasing, on their behalf, certain "bijaks" which were likely to prove profitable. The accused agreed, but stated that they had no money. The accused however told him that payment would be made after a certain time. It is also alleged by the accused that they distinctly told the complainant that they had no money in the Bank, but that they would deposit it in the Allahabad Bank, Dehra Dun, for the purpose of payment for the "bijaks." On that understanding they gave the cheque to the complainant with instructions not to present it for payment till a time named by which the accused would open an account with the Allahabad Bank, Dehra Dun for payment to the complainant's firm. Both parties produced witnesses in support of their allegations. The Magistrate who examined the witnesses disbelieved the complainant's story and his witnesses and believed those produced on behalf of the accused. On that finding the accused were acquitted.

(3.) In revision before me two questions have been argued by the learned advocate for the applicant. First, it is contended that the Muzaffarnagar Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused. This comes with a bad grace from the complainant, who himself filed a complaint at Muzaffarnagar. This however is not a fatal objection to the argument, if it is otherwise well founded. The learned advocate for the applicant has referred me to a case recently decided by a Full Bench of this Court, in which it was held that Section 179, Criminal P.C., applies where the act done and the consequence following that act must enter into the definition of the offence the commission of which is complained against. But where the offence is complete in itself by reason of the act having been done and the consequence is a mere result of it which was not essential for completion of the offence, then Section 179 would not be applicable : Kashi Ram Msehta V/s. Emperor 1934 All. 499. Section 179, Criminal P.C., which was the subject of consideration in the ruling cited above provides that: When a person is accused of the 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 tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued.