K SIMHACHALAM Vs. RATI KANTA LAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for our consideration in this Rule is one of jurisdiction. The complainant has brought charges under sections 403, 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate at Krishnagar in the District of Nadia, against the petitioner, an official of an Insurance Company having its Head Office at Bimlipatam in the Madras Presidency, alleging that, he has misappropriated certain sums of money paid on account of an insurance policy. The question is whether the case can be tried in the Nadia Court.

(2.) Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts. Section 177 provides the general Rule that an offence must ordinarily be tried in the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. Then follow a number of enabling sections which extend the jurisdiction of Courts. One of the, Section 181 (2), pro. vides specially for the trial of the offence of criminal misappropriation. By it the offence may be tried by a Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property, the subject of the offence, was received or retained as well as by the Court which is given jurisdiction by Section 177.

(3.) Now when the Code in express terms enumerates the Courts which have jurisdiction in language which is apparently exhaustive, if it is sought to establish the fact that another enabling Section still further extends the jurisdiction, we must only give effect to the argument if the Court claiming jurisdiction comes strictly within the terms of the section.