Order.- This is a petition filed by one Jayendrabhai Keshavlah Sheth of Ahmedabad under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras granting bail to the first respondent herein (Accused). 2. A few facts borne out from the records may be stated at the outset to appreciate the point in controversy. The petitioner herein laid a complaint against the first respondent herein, viz., Abdul Rahim alias Rahimbhai and four others under section 420 , Indian Penal Code read with section 34, Indian Penal Code that the accused had cheated him to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000. According to the complaint, the first respondent and four others came to Ahmedabad and offered to supply gold for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 at a cheap rate. The complainant fell a victim to the said offer and he was taken to Delhi to contact some persons, and then to Madras, where he (complainant) paid a sum of Rs. 30,000 in cash to the first respondent and other accused at Madras having already parted with a sum of One Lakh rupees. As usual, the promised gold was not forthcoming. The petitioner then laid a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15 at Ahmedabad in Gujarat alleging offences under section 420, Indian Penal Code, against the first respondent and four others. The learned Magistrate passed on order under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, directing the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad to inquire into the complaint and arrest the accused and charge-sheet them in that Court. In pursuance of that complaint and the consequent order of the said Magistrate, the Ahmedabad police registered a case in Crime No. 39 of 1981, cameto Madras and arrested the first respondent (accused) and was put in the Central Jail, Madras for the purpose of transmission to Ahmedabad. 3. On 14th December, 1981, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahmedabad moved the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras with a request for a P.T. War. rant to take the first respondent (accused) from the Central Prison, Madras and produce him before the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City and prayed for a journey warrant. 3. On 14th December, 1981, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahmedabad moved the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras with a request for a P.T. War. rant to take the first respondent (accused) from the Central Prison, Madras and produce him before the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City and prayed for a journey warrant. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate made an endorsement on the application of the Police Officer that the accused Rahimbhai was not produced before him and therefore, sent a requisition to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Madras to cause his (first respondent's production immediately. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate also ordered that if no escort was available, the prisoner may be handed over to Mr. Basali, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and his men. Accordingly, the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, handed over the prisoner (first respondent) to the Police Officer, Ahmedabad under intimation to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, and the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City. The escort police was instructed to be very vigilant during transit till the remand prisoner was produced before the Court at Ahmedabad However, the first respondent, who appears to be a very knowing and well informed man, moved the principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on the very same day for releasing him on bail and the learned Sessions Judge without ordering notice to any one passed an order on 14th December, 1981, itself, granting interim bail and directing the release of the first respondent Abdul Rahim on his depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000 with his wife standing as a surety. The first respondent was directed to appear before the Sessions Judge on 17th December, 1981, when notice was ordered to the City Public Prosecutor, Madras. The learned Sessions Judge then heard the bail application and passed an older on 18th December, 1981, in these terms: “From the facts stated above I am satisfied that a complaint lodged by the complainant at Ahmedabad is without jurisdiction since the offence is said to have been committed only at Madras. Further, no charge has yet been framed against the petitioner and the police has been asked only to investigate into the case. In those circumstances, 1 direct that if the Ahmedabad Police wants to interrogate the petitioner, the petitioner shall make himself available at the G-5 Police Station, Madras on any day on previous notice. Further, no charge has yet been framed against the petitioner and the police has been asked only to investigate into the case. In those circumstances, 1 direct that if the Ahmedabad Police wants to interrogate the petitioner, the petitioner shall make himself available at the G-5 Police Station, Madras on any day on previous notice. The interim bail ordered on 14th December, 1981, is made absolute subject to the condition stated above”. The interim-bail was accordingly made absolute. 4. Now, the complainant has filed this petition stating that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, had no power to interfere with the investigation which was being carried out by the Ahmedabad Police and that it was not proper for the learned Sessions Judge to intervene at the stage of investigation and held that the complaint laid by the complainant at Ahmedabad is without jurisdiction. The petitioner further submits that the investigation of the case was carried Out under the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 15, Ahmedabad, and as such, the report was required to be filed at Ahmedabad under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code. It is further stated that the Sessions Court has no inherent powers vested with it to give a direction in respect of a remand prisoner on transit. Therefore, it prayed that the abovesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Madras dated 18th December, 1981, be quashed and the bail granted to the first respondent herein may be cancelled and the police may be permitted to take him to Ahmedabad for investigation. 5. The facts stated supra are not in controversy it is perfectly clear that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahmedabad was acting only under the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 15, Ahmedabad City, who had directed the police to investigate the matter under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, to arrest the accused and file the chargesheet before that Court. Accordingly, the Ahmedabad police came to Madras, arrested the first respondent herein, who was put in the Central Prison, Madras for the purpose of transmission to Ahmedabad Court. Therefore, the facts of the case, squarely came under section and not under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which makes it incumbent on the Police Officer to produce the accused before the Ahmedabad Court having jurisdiction. Therefore, the facts of the case, squarely came under section and not under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which makes it incumbent on the Police Officer to produce the accused before the Ahmedabad Court having jurisdiction. As already stated, the arrested person has been put in transit by the Jail Superintendent in pursuance of the requisition of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ahmedabad and also the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras directing the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison to hand over the prisoner to the Ahmedabad Police for the purpose of transit This was done on 14th December, 1981, and when once this had been done, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras lad become functus officio. In other words, the prisoner must be deemed in law to be under the custody of Ahmedabad Magistrate only, over whom the principal Sessions Judge, Madras had no jurisdiction to interfere to transit and pass an order releasing him (prisoner) on bail. It is also noticed that the prisoner was granted interim bail on the very same day without notice to the Public prosecutor and without even calling for the complaint against him. Therefore, on this short ground, the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail has to be and is hereby set aside. 6. Coming to the order itself, it appears to be an extraordinary and an unusual order. The learned Sessions Judge, apparently without looking into the complaint had given a finding that the Ahmedabad Court has no jurisdiction and that offence had been committed only at Madras. A perusal of the translation of the complaint clearly shows that the offence of cheating had been committed at Ahmedabad where the complaint was presented. According to the complainant (petitioner) the cheating was perpetrated on a representation made to him by the accused at Ahmedabad within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Court and where he is residing, and as a result thereof, the complainant was induced to part with money. section 178, Criminal Procedure Code, deals with place of inquiry or trial and it is stated therein that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where the offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas that one, it may be inquired into or tried by the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, the fact that Rs. 30,000 out of the sum of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees were paid by the complainant at Madras would not by itself take away the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Court. In any event, this is a matter to be decided on evidence by the trial Magistrate and not by the learned Sessions Judge, who was only hearing a bail application. It is well-settled that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. For instance, if deception is practised at ‘A’ and payment made at ‘B’ either of the Courts at ‘A’ or ‘B‘ is competent to try the case. 7. That is not all. The learned Sessions Judge has further proceeded to give a direction to the investigating officer, Ahmedabad, which is equally extraordinary. In the bail order, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the Ahmedabad Police to come to Madras and interrogate the first respondent herein at a specified place on previous notice. This is unknown to law. Such a direction cannot be given by any Court to the investigating officer, who has a statutory power to investigate a cognisable offence. It was not permissible for the learned Principal Sessions Judge to direct the police officer of Ahmedabad come to Madras and interrogate the accused a particular place. In Nirmaljit v. State of West Bengal1 it is observed that the police authorities have under sections 154 and 156 of the Code, a statutory right to investigate into a cognisable offence without requiring any sanction from the Judicial Authority and even the High Court has no inherent power to interfere with the exercise of that statutory power. But, in the instans case before me, the Ahmedabad Magistrate has not only ordered investigation under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, but also directed the Police Officer to arrest the accused and to produce him before that Court. That being so, once investigation by the police is ordered by the Court, no limitations can be placed or any directions giver to the Police Officers as to how they should conduct the investigation. 8. It follows, therefore, that the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, granting bail to the first respondent herein has to be and is hereby set aside and the status quo ante restored, as far as this accused (first respondent) is concerned. 8. It follows, therefore, that the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, granting bail to the first respondent herein has to be and is hereby set aside and the status quo ante restored, as far as this accused (first respondent) is concerned. Although it logically follows that the first respondent should be recommitted to custody forthwith, yet in view of the long lapse of time from’ 14th December, 1981. I consider that an opportunity should be given to the first respondent to appear before the 15th Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) with in two weeks from to-day failing which it is open to the Ahmedabad Magistrate to take such steps as he deems fit to secure the presence of the first respondent. I, therefore, direct the first respondent to appear before the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) on or before 7th September, 1982, failing which law will take its own course. 9. Crl. M.P. No. 990 of 1982: In view of the order in Crl.M. p. No. 989 of 1982, no separate orders are necessary in this application. R.S.R. ----- Order of Sessions Judge set aside.