JUDGMENT 1. - The criminal revision has been filed by the accused and arises in the following circumstances. Manjeet Singh, who is doing the business of distribution and exhibition of cinema films under the name and style of J.M. Film Distributors, Jaipur, filed a complaint on January 17, 1972, in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, No.4, Jaipur City, against N.C. Sippy and R.L. Suri under sections 420/34, Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that he met the accused N.C. Sippi and R.L. Suri, who are working as producers of cinema films under the name of Shri Ambika Chitra at Bombay and negotiated with them in respect of the distribution and exhibition rights of film 'Parwana' in the Rajasthan territory. The complainant's case is that the accused showed to him the publicity material in connection with the aforesaid film 'Parwana' and the records of the songs in the said film were also played in his presence, of which particularly one song "Jis Din se Maine Tumko Dekha Hai" was very much appreciated by him and after hearing that song, the complainant felt convinced that the picture 'Parwana' would be successful at the box office and according to the complainant it was because of the existence of the aforesaid song in the said film that he entered into an agreement with the accused for obtaining from them the distribution and exhibition rights of the film 'Parwana' in respect of the Rajasthan territory. The letter of agreement was admittedly signed by the parties at Bombay on June 22, 1971, which provided for giving the distribution and exhibition rights of the film 'Parwana' in the Rajasthan circuit to the complainant, against the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- as non-refundable minimum guarantee, in three instalments. The complainant's case further is that he paid the sum of Rs. 15,001/- to the accused then and there immediately upon the signing of the aforesaid letter of arrangement on 22.6.71. According to him, thereafter a final agreement was received by him by post at Jaipur on the 1st of July, 1971, which was to record and confirm the arrangement already arrived at between the parties pursuant to their personal discussion regarding distribution, exploitation and exhibition right of film 'Parwana' in the Rajasthan Circuit. According to him, thereafter a final agreement was received by him by post at Jaipur on the 1st of July, 1971, which was to record and confirm the arrangement already arrived at between the parties pursuant to their personal discussion regarding distribution, exploitation and exhibition right of film 'Parwana' in the Rajasthan Circuit. The complainant further alleged that a Press show of the film 'Parwana' was exhibited in Bombay on June 30, 1971, and the said film was thereafter exhibited at regular shows in some cinema houses at Bombay on July 2, 1971, and that the song 'Jis Din se Maine Tumko Dekha Hai' was contained in the said film 'Parwana' when it was exhibited at the Press show and at regular shows in Bombay. Two trailors of the aforesaid film were sent by the accused to the complainant at Jaipur and one of them was shown at Ramprakash Cinema at Jaipur and the song referred to above was also contained in the said trailor. The complainant further alleged that the publicity materials in respect of the film 'Parwana' was delivered to him at Jaipur by the accused through the Bank of Rajasthan Jaipur branch, against payment of Rs. 22,022/- inclusive of bank commission, and the song in question was contained in the book-lets containing the story and the songs of the said film, which were sent by the accused to him along with the other publicity materials. It is further alleged that two prints of the film 'Parwana' were sent by the accused by Rail and the Railway receipt was "self" consigned. The railway receipt was handed over to the complainant at Jaipur on January 6,1972, by the Indian Overseas Bank Jaipur branch on behalf of the accused, on the complainant furnishing a pay order for a sum of Rs. 88,768.50 as demanded by the said bank. The bank endorsed the Railway receipt in favour of the complainant and handed over the same to him on the complainant making payment of the aforesaid amount. The complainant obtained the delivery of the prints from the Railway and one of the prints was exhibited in Manprakash Cinema at Jaipur in 12 noon show on January 7, 1972, but on such exhibition it was found that the song "Jis Din se Maine Tumko Dekha Hai" was missing. The complainant obtained the delivery of the prints from the Railway and one of the prints was exhibited in Manprakash Cinema at Jaipur in 12 noon show on January 7, 1972, but on such exhibition it was found that the song "Jis Din se Maine Tumko Dekha Hai" was missing. Public made an uproar and demanded the refund of the price of the tickets from the Manager of the above cinema, who immediately complained about the same to the representative of the complainant, who was then present at the cinema house. The complainant was immediately called and he also saw the full show and also found that the aforesaid song was missing in the print supplied to him by the accused and length of the picture was also thereby reduced by about 150 meters. The complainant thereupon came to know that the accused had deceived him and induced him dishonestly to part with a huge amount of money with the intention of causing wrongful loss to him and that the aforesaid deception caused by the accused by words and conduct, caused deprivation of property to the complainant. The complainant therefore submitted that the accused persons are guilty of offence under sections 420/34, Indian Penal Court. 2. The Learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the accused on February 10, 1972, and after the accused appeared before him, they submitted an application on September 2, 1972, challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to hear and decide the complaint. The submission of the accused was that the contract in question was entered into at Bombay and that the entire amount pursuant to the contract was also agreed to be paid at Bombay and was so paid and further that the prints of the aforesaid film 'Parwana' were sent by rail from Bombay to Jaipur & the delivery thereof by them to the Railway authorities at Bombay should be considered as delivery to the complainant. According to the accused the alleged offence was committed at Bombay and the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Thus according to the submission of the accused the alleged deception took place at Bombay. According to the accused the alleged offence was committed at Bombay and the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Thus according to the submission of the accused the alleged deception took place at Bombay. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments of the parties, by his order dated October 10, 1972, held that he had jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint, as a part of the offence was committed at Jaipur in as much as the alleged loss to the complainant ensued at Jaipur, which was the consequence of the alleged misrepresentation. The accused filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, but the same was rejected by the order dated March 16, 1973. Hence, the present revision application was filed by the accused in this court. 3. Learned counsel for the accused applicants vehemently argued that the agreement was admittedly entered into between the parties at Bombay; according to clause 2 of the letter of arrangement dated June 22, 1971 the entire amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at Bombay; the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was admittedly paid at Bombay by the complainant; the accused were liable to give the delivery of the publicity materials and the prints to the complainant against payment only at Bombay; there is no reason to think that the remaining amount was not paid at Bombay in accordance with the agreement and that the publicity materials and the prints were sent by the accused by rail from Bombay to Jaipur at the risk of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the note to the dispatch memos of the publicity materials and the prints, which is to the following effect:- "We are not responsible for loss or damage to the goods in transit as our responsibility ceases immediately the same leave our godown." He also argued that the bank commission was paid by the complainant and as such the Bank, through which the railway receipts were sent, was the Agent of the complainant. He further drew my attention to clause 22 of the letter of arrangement dated June 22, 1971, which provided that the arrangement was made at Bombay and all the payments thereunder, and all materials to be delivered thereunder would be so done at Bombay and that it was further agreed that the Courts in the City of Bombay alone would have necessary jurisdiction to try any matter of dispute that may arise in respect of the said agreement. On the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the learned counsel submitted that the court at Bombay alone had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to him the alleged deception, if any, took place at Bombay and the Court at Jaipur has no jurisdiction in the matter. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant opposite party submitted that the accused had consigned the publicity materials and the prints as 'self' and the railway receipts in respect thereof were sent through bank for payment against delivery. The complainant made the payment of the sum of Rs. 22,022/- at Jaipur and received the publicity materials on making such payment. Thereafter he made payment of the sum of Rs. 81,768.50 on January 6, 1972 to the Overseas Bank, Jaipur and upon the payment of the said amount, the aforesaid Bank, as a representative of the accused, endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the complainant & delivered the same to him. Thus the consequence of the deception, namely the deprivation of property in the shape of actual payment of substantial sum of money by the complainant took place at Jaipur and thus at least a part of the offence was committed at Jaipur. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the payment of the amount of Rs. 88,768.50 in consequence of the false representation made by the accused was a necessary ingredient of the offence of cheating and as such the court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 5. According to the learned counsel for the complainant the payment of the amount of Rs. 88,768.50 in consequence of the false representation made by the accused was a necessary ingredient of the offence of cheating and as such the court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 5. In order to resolve the controversy as to whether the Court at Jaipur has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in the instant case, I will have to consider the provisions of Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code which are as under:- "179 When the 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 ensured." 6. The offence under section 420 read with Section 415, Indian Penal Code has two ingredients, namely, deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly and dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. Thus, one of the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, is that as a result of cheating or deception, some property is delivered by the person so deceived. The consequence, namely, the delivery of property in pursuance of cheating or deception practised upon him as a necessary part of ingredient of the aforesaid offence and under section 179 Criminal Procedure Code the offence of cheating could be tried either at the place where the misrepresentation or deception took place or where any consequence thereof ensued namely where the complainant delivered the property as a result of the alleged deception. In view of these provisions, therefore, a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such consequence ensued, will necessarily have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in respect of the commission of such an offence. 7. Now it is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court to try a case has to be determined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint. In Sanatan Daw v. Dasarsthi Tah, AIR 1959 Cal 677 it was held that: "It is the allegation made in the petition of a complaint that gives jurisdiction to Magistrate to take up a case for trial". In Sanatan Daw v. Dasarsthi Tah, AIR 1959 Cal 677 it was held that: "It is the allegation made in the petition of a complaint that gives jurisdiction to Magistrate to take up a case for trial". In the present case, the allegations in the complaint go to show that although the misrepresentation or deception was made at Bombay as the agreement was entered into by the parties at Bombay, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in persuance thereof was also paid by the complainant at Bombay, yet in consequence of the alleged deception, the complainant parted with substantial part of the amount at Jaipur. The railway receipt in respect of the prints was consigned "self" by the accused, who were the consignors, thereof and the receipt was handed over by them to the bank with the direction that it should be delivered to the complainant against payment of the amount of Rs. 88,768.50. Further the Prints were delivered to the complainant at Jaipur for exhibition at that place and it was there that the song in question was found missing in the prints. 8. In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 , the Supreme Court held:- "The offence of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code as defined in section 415 of the code has two essential ingredients, viz. (1) deceit i.e. dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation to a person, and (2) the inducing of that person thereby to deliver property" On the facts of that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that all the ingredients necessary for completing the offence of cheating under S. 420 read with S. 415 had occurred at Bombay. In that sense the entire offence was committed at Bombay and not merely the consequence viz, delivery of money which was one of the essential ingredients of the offence." 9. Similarly in Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 26 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that:- "The provisions of S. 179 and 180 are wide enough to enable cognizance to be taken either by a Court where anything was done within the local limits of its jurisdiction or a court where the consequences ensured. Similarly in Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 26 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that:- "The provisions of S. 179 and 180 are wide enough to enable cognizance to be taken either by a Court where anything was done within the local limits of its jurisdiction or a court where the consequences ensured. Illustration (c) to S. 179 clearly states that if A is put in fear of injury within the local limits of the jurisdiction of court X, & is thereby induced within the limits of the jurisdiction of court Y to deliver property to the person who put him in fear, the offence of extortion committed against A may be inquired into or tried either at X or Y. The appellant could have been therefore tried either at Lahore or at Simla for the offence of cheating as the misrepresentation was at Simla and the consequence was at Lahore as the Government of Burma was induced by the misrepresentation to deliver property (money) at Lahore." 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the offence of cheating in the present case under section 420, Indian Penal Code, could have been tried either at the place where the fraudulent misrepresentation or deception took place or where as consequence thereof the complainant was induced to deliver the property. As has been stated above even if the misrepresentation or deception might have taken place at Bombay, according to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant was induced to deliver, substantial part of the money that is Rs. 220,22/- against the two prints at Jaipur and as such the accused could have been tried either at Bombay or at Jaipur. 11. 220,22/- against the two prints at Jaipur and as such the accused could have been tried either at Bombay or at Jaipur. 11. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that not only in the letter of arrangement dated June 22, 1971, it was agreed between the parties that the publicity material as well as the prints would be delivered by the accused to the complaint against cash payment at Bombay, but in the application submitted by the accused on 2.9.72 in the Court of learned Magistrate, questioning his jurisdiction to try the case, it was mentioned that the agreed amount was paid to the accused at Bombay and as such not only the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation or deception took place at Bombay, but the payment in consequence thereof was also effected at that very place. His further submission is that it should be presumed that the payment was made at Bombay according to the contract between the parties as per the letter of arrangement dated June 22, 1971. However, as observed earlier, the question of jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. Although there is no doubt that in the agreement entered into by the parties on June 22, 1971, it was provided that the payment shall be made by the complainant against the delivery of publicity materials and of two positive prints of the picture 'Parwana' in Bombay, yet there are positive allegations made in the complaint in paragraphs 8, 9, and 14 that the complainant made payment of the sums of Rs. 22,022/- and Rs. 88,768.50 against the delivery of the publicity materials and two prints of the picture 'Parwana' at Jaipur. The jurisdiction to try the case against the accused could not be determined on the basis of the terms of prior agreement between the parties or even on the basis of presumption that such terms should have been complied with by the parties. It may also be mentioned here that merely the existence of a printed note in the delivery memos issued by the accused to the effect that the consignor had no liability for the loss or damage to the goods in transit, can be of no avail to the accused in as much as the delivery memo was a unilateral document and its contents had no binding effect upon the complainant. Moreover, the railway receipts were consigned "self", viz, the consignor was himself the consignee and the complainant could not have obtained delivery of the goods at Jaipur unless and until he made payments of the aforesaid amounts to the Banks at Jaipur who held the railway receipts on behalf of the accused and could have delivered the same to the complainant only against payment. Further mere payment of Bank commission by the complainant could not make the bank an agent of the complainant so long as the Bank held the Railway Receipt on behalf of the accused with direction to endorse and deliver the same to the complainant only against payment. 12. Mr. Tikku, learned counsel for the complainant contends that the misrepresentation not only took place at Bombay but a part thereof also took place at Jaipur, in as much as the publicity materials and the trailors, which contained a reference to the existence of the song "Jis Din se Maine Tumko Dekha Hai" in the aforesaid picture 'Parwana' was delivered to the complainant at Jaipur and that even at the time when the aforesaid publicity materials and the trailors were received by the complainant at Jaipur, he was still given the impression that the said song was contained in the prints which were going to be delivered to him in furtherance of the letter of arrangement, as it found place in the book-lets and trailors sent by the accused to him. 13. Learned counsel for the accused Mr. Bhoot relied on Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v. Chhotelal Jain, AIR 1963 MP 128 where in it has been held that it is not every consequence which may flow from a crime which confers jurisdiction on the Court within whose local limits it ensued & that the word 'consequence' occuring in S. 179 connotes only that consequence which is an integral part of the offence and not a consequence which is not material to the culpability of the accused in relation to that particular offence. In that case an agent of a firm at Jabalpur delivered a bank draft to the accused at Allahabad in consequence of an act of deception practised at Allahabad, thereby causing loss to the Jabalpur firm. In that case an agent of a firm at Jabalpur delivered a bank draft to the accused at Allahabad in consequence of an act of deception practised at Allahabad, thereby causing loss to the Jabalpur firm. As both the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, viz., the deception as well as the delivery of the bank draft in consequence thereof took place at Allahabad, only the Court at that place could have jurisdiction to try the offence of cheating in that case. It was, therefore, rightly held that the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction, merely because pecuniary loss was caused to the Jabalpur firm by reason of the act done at Allahabad. As the delivery of the Bank draft was made at Allahabad itself where the deception also took place, the offence of cheating was completed at Allahabad. The aforesaid case is thus clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the present case it is alleged that the delivery of property, that is, money took place at Jaipur in consequence of the alleged deception and as such one of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, took place at Jaipur. Thus in my view, as the delivery of property is an essential or necessary ingredient of the offence of cheating as defined in section 415, Indian Penal Court, and punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Court, the learned Magistrate at Jaipur has jurisdiction to try the offence against the accused. The learned Magistrate, therefore was right in holding that he has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case and the orders passed by him and the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur, do not call for any interference. 14. The revision petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. *******