EMPEROR Vs. NARAIN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal. on behalf of the Local Government from an order passed by the learned Sessions. Judge, Aligarh, in appeal from an order passed by a Magistrate of that District, convicting the respondent Narain Das of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. One Bed Ram made a report at the Police Station, Hathras, on 16 June 1934, charging Narain Das with the offence of cheating. Sub-Inspector Hukum Singh was deputed to investigate the case and . went to search the house of Narain Das in that connexion. Subsequently Narain Das who was dissatisfied, in some respects, with the action of Hukum Singh, sent a. petition by post to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who has his headquarters at Agra, complaining that the Sub-Inspector had in the course of the search, taken possession of eight sovereigns and had given a receipt therefor. It was alleged that subsequently the Sub-Inspector misappropriated the sovereigns.

(2.) The Deputy Inspector-General made an . investigation and found that the complaint was false. He decided to prosecute Narain Das for an offence under Section 182 and filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hathras where Narain Das house was situate and where the offence of cheating was alleged by Bed Ram to have taken place. The Magistrate who tried the case convicted Narain Das of an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. Narain Das appealed from his conviction to the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. His counsel took a preliminary point and argued that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hathras, had no jurisdiction to try Narain Das for an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, in view of the circumstances of the case. It was pointed out that the petition sent by Narain Das was posted at Hathras but was received by the Deputy Inspector-General at Agra. Accordingly it was contended that the offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code was committed at Agra and not at Aligarh. This contention found favour with the learned Sessions Judge who set aside the conviction directing that the complaint of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police be returned to him for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) The present appeal is by the Local Government challenging the correctness of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Mr. K.D. Malaviya, who appears for the opposite party Narain Das, has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that no appeal is maintainable from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge which is not one of acquittal. It is not necessary for us to express any decisive opinion on the merits of this preliminary objection, as even if we held that no appeal lies, we think that, in the circumstances of the case, the memorandum of appeal should be treated as an application for revision under Section 435, Criminal P.C. Whether the case be treated as one of appeal or of revision, the questions raised by the Local Government can be considered by this Court and suitable orders passed according, to the correct view of the questions decided by the learned Sessions Judge.