G A ST GEORGE Vs. UMA DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar with the following recommendations: (1) That the proceedings be quashed for the reasons that the tahsildar had no jurisdiction, as a Magistrate of the Second Class, to commit the accused to the Court of Session, and that, in any case, no Court of the Muzaffarnagar District has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance; (2) or if it be held that the Courts in this district have territorial jurisdiction, that the proceedings be quashed in that there is no case made out by the complainant for the issue of process, or even for the purpose of further inquiry under Section 202, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this reference are somewhat unusual. The complainant is a legal practitioner of Ghaziabad, District Meerut. The opposite party, G.A. St. George is one of the directors of Messrs. Bennett Coleman & Co., Bombay. The Company edits two papers. One of them is known as the "Illustrated Weekly of India." The paper conducts a cross-word competition known as "Commonsense crossword." The public is periodically invited to compete in the solution of cross-word puzzles published by the paper and the terms on which a person is entitled to compete are notified in the paper. The cross-word competition No. 130 was published in the issue of 14 August 1938. The complainant on 8th September 1938 sent nine entries addressed to the Illustrated Weekly of India, Commonsense Cross-word, No. 130, Bombay, with a postal order for Rs. 6. The complainant's case is that the free-entry coupon No. 2 sent by the complainant tallied exactly with correct solution published by the accused but the prize of Rs. 25,000 payable to him was never paid. It is further alleged that the complainant sent in scrutiny claim for the re-examination of the solutions sent by him and also Rs. 5 as demanded by the accused. It is stated in para. 8 of the complaint that the accused did not send any reply to the inquiries made by the complainant. On these facts it is alleged in para. 9 that the accused has by his acts of omission and commission cheated the complainant out of the sum of Rs. 28,000 and a new Ford V-8 car worth Rs. 5000 and thereby committed offences Under Section 417/427.

(3.) It is now stated that the reference to a new Ford V-8 car is an error. The offer was in fact for a free double return passage to Paris or London. Para. 10 of the complaint states that the accused has further criminally misappropriated the sum of Rs. 6 sent by postal order as entry fee and the sum of Rs. 5 sent by M.O. as scrutiny fee and thereby committed an offence under Section 403, I.P.C.