EMPEROR Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in respect of an order made by the First Class Magistrate of Poona discharging the accused on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. It may be mentioned that on this reference a rule was issued to the accused. The Government Pleader has appeared in support of the reference, and we have heard him. We have considered the point arising on the facts which are briefly these: The case for the prosecution was that the accused hired a cycle at Poona on June 11, 1925, for six hours, but, instead of returning the same in accordance with his written contract, he took it out to Yeola, in the Nasik District, and deposited it with one Damu Namdeo Sali as a security for an advance of Rs. 6. On these allegations the accused was charged with criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction and he gave the following reasons: It is clear that the actual disposal was effected at Yeola in Nasik District. With the nature of the disposal I am not now concerned. The important question is whether any Poona Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case simply because the contract for hire was made in the Poona City.

(3.) After referring to Section 181(2), Criminal P.C, the learned Magistrate observes: In my humble opinion no Poona Magistrate has jurisdiction and the case must be tried at Yeola.