Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 59 (MP)

MANOJ KUMAR v. STATE OF M. P.

1991-02-08

B.M.LAL

body1991
B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) THE decision in this revision shall also govern disposal of Criminal Revision No. 438 of 1988 (Bhagwandas v. Chandra Shekhar Rao and others); as both these revisions arise out of order passed in Criminal Revision No. 199187 passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. ( 2 ) CASES under Sections 420 and 467 read with section 34, I. P. C. have been registered against the non-applicants before the C. J. M. , Bilaspur. The non-applicants raised an objection that the Bilaspur Court has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case as the vehicles in question involved in the alleged offences have been registered at Raipur and therefore it was submitted that only Raipur Court has jurisdiction. ( 3 ) AS such, the short question involved in both the revision petitions is that whether the Bilaspur Court has jurisdiction to try the case where the offence is alleged to have been committed or whether the Raipur Court where the vehicles involved are registered. ( 4 ) IN this regard Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials and provisions of Section 181, which falls under Chapter XIII, dealt about the place of trial in case of certain offence. Sub-Section (4) of Section 181 reads as under: - (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. ( 5 ) IN the instant case the vehicle involved in the offence, though registered at Raipur, was seized at Bilaspur and the same has been retained at Bilaspur. Therefore, applying the provisions of Section 181 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the facts of the instant case, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. It appears that the learned revisional Court has lost sight of the above provision. ( 6 ) THIS being so, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur shall conduct the trial. Revision allowed. .