Judgment : PRATAP SINGH, J. 1. THE accused in C. C. No. 10313 of 1985 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras; have filed this Petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C. C. No. 10313 of 1985 and quash the same. 2. THE respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner, arraying them as accused 1 and 2. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is doing export and import business in Madras. He is having dealings with Punjab National Bank, Madras Branch, in connection with his export and import business. The second accused, the then Chairman of the Punjab National Bank is father of first accused. He suggested to the complainant in 1979-80 to transact business with his son, the first accused, who was doing business in London at that time. Accused No. 1 was working as Sales Manager in Rank Xerox Co. ,. London. He resigned his job and started a company called Raxshire Limited with the help of second accused who was then Chairman of Punjab National-Bank in India. The second accused in his capacity as Chairman of the Punjab National Bank, promised to help the complainant in various ways provided this complainant exported textiles to first accused company in London on usance credit basis. On that representation made by second accused, the complainant started exporting textiles to second. 1 accused at Raxshire, London. But for the assurance given by second accused, the complainant would not have exported goods on usance credit -basis but first accused would have exported only on the basis of Documents against payment. The complainant exported first consignment on 28. 3. 1980 and last consignment was on 12. 5. 1983. The first accused was making payment regularly upto May, 1983. During June, 1983, first accuseds intention to cheat the complainant became manifest as 13 cheques sent by first accused were dishonoured. The total amount covered by those 13 dishonoured cheques comes to $ 6,12,759. 51 viz. , about one crore in Indian Rupees. One of the cheques issued by first accused was returned with remarks signature differs. The cheque containing forged signature was intentionally issued by first accused. The first accused had cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,32,25,881. 92. 51 viz. , about one crore in Indian Rupees. One of the cheques issued by first accused was returned with remarks signature differs. The cheque containing forged signature was intentionally issued by first accused. The first accused had cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,32,25,881. 92. The complainant made several attempts to recover the outstanding from first accused by repeated written demands. The first accused had evaded to pay the dues, with intention to cheat the complainant. He represented that he had sent goods to Nigeria and he could not get payment because of the military coup there. In support of his representation, the first -accused endorsed to the complainant a cheque issued by a Nigerian ,part for a sum of Rs. 3,21,000/ -. That cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant came to know that the first accused has sold most of the goods in London itself through brokers and only a small portion of the goods has been sent to Nigerian party. The complainant would not have sent the goods to first accused but for the representation made by him that his cheques would be honoured. Both accused 1 and 2 have colluded with each other with a view to cheat the complainant. 3. THE first accused asked the complainant to send the documents to Bank of Credit and Commerce International, London. The complainant instructed Punjab National Bank, Madras to present the documents through B. C. C. I. , London. All these documents through B. C. C. I. , London and the Punjab National Bank, London were kept out of picture on account of influence used by second accused. In normal banking practice, the documents should have been sent through Punjab National Bank, London which was not done intentionally because of the influence given by second accused by abusing his official position. The motive for by-passing Punjab National Bank, London is to prevent the complainant from recovering the dues with the help of Punjab National Bank, London. The amount of Rs. 4. 30 Crores cheated by accused 1 and 2 has been directed and converted by them in various ways. Accused 1 and 2 have committed the offence of cheating and forgery. Hence the complaint. 4. MR. The amount of Rs. 4. 30 Crores cheated by accused 1 and 2 has been directed and converted by them in various ways. Accused 1 and 2 have committed the offence of cheating and forgery. Hence the complaint. 4. MR. N. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend firstly that there arc no allegations in the complaint against the second accused to make out an offence under section 420 read with section 109 Indian Indian Penal Code and secondly that there arc no allegations Im offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code against first accused, and thirdly, allegations if any, for offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code against first accused and under section 467 I. P. C. against first accused, part of cause of action for offence under section 420, I. P. C. had arisen at London and cause of action for offence under section 467, I. P. C. in its entirely had arisen at London and hence without the previous sanction of the Central Government. In is prosecution is not maintainable. Per Contra, Mr. K. A. Panchapakesan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there are allegations to make out offences under section 420 read with section 109, I. P. C. against second accused and for offences under section 420, Indian Indian Penal Code against first accused the bouncing of the cheques was only in India and hence the proviso to section 188 Criminal Procedure Code will not come into play. 5. I shall first take up the first contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I shall at the outset refer to the allegations made against second accused in the complaint. In para 3 of the complaint, it is alleged that the second accused, the then Chairman of Punjab National Bank is father of first accused and he suggested to the complainant in 1979-80 to transact business with his son, the first petitioner herein, who was doing business in London at that time. It is further stated that the second accused in his capacity as Chairman of Punjab National Bank in India promised to help this complainant in various ways provided this complainant exported goods Viz. , textiles to first accused company in London on usance credit basis. It is further stated that the second accused in his capacity as Chairman of Punjab National Bank in India promised to help this complainant in various ways provided this complainant exported goods Viz. , textiles to first accused company in London on usance credit basis. In page 5 of the complaint it is alleged that both the first accused and his father, the second accused colluded with each other with a view to cheat this complainant. Then it is alleged that the first accused asked the complainant to send the documents to Bank of Credit and Commerce International London and that the Punjab National Bank, London was kept out of the picture on account of the influence used by second accused. Lower down, it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 4. 30 crores cheated by accused 1 and 2 has been directed and converted by them in various ways. The representations said to have been made by the second accused is that he promised to help the complained in various ways provided the complained exported goods viz. , textiles to first accused company in London on usance credit basis, The representation was said to be made in 1979-80. It is alleged that the complainant exported first consignment on 28. 3. 1980 and last consignment on 12. 5. 1983 and that first accused was making payment regularly upto May 1983. While the representation was made in 1979-80, everything went unwell to May 1983, according to the complaint itself. There is absolutely no allegation that after the second accused made his representation and after the complainant sent textiles to first accused, the second accused did not honour the representation made by him. Such an allegation is very conspicuously and significantly absent. It is simply stated that accused 1 and 2 colluded with each other with a view to cheat the complainant. That would not satisfy the requirements of section 109, I. P. C. On a scrutiny of the entire complaint, I am satisfied that there arc no sufficient allegations to make out offences either under section 420, I. P. C. or under section 420, I. P. C. read with section 109, I. P. C. against the second accused. 6. That would not satisfy the requirements of section 109, I. P. C. On a scrutiny of the entire complaint, I am satisfied that there arc no sufficient allegations to make out offences either under section 420, I. P. C. or under section 420, I. P. C. read with section 109, I. P. C. against the second accused. 6. REGARDING the first accused, the allegation with regard to the representation is made in para 3 which reads as follows:the complainant would not have sent the goods but for the representation made by the first accused that the cheques would be honoured. No particulars are given as to when and where this representation was made by first accused to the complainant. In the first part of para No. 2, it is stated that on the assurance and promise and representations of the second accused, the complainant started exporting textiles to the first accused at Raxshire, London. This is later allegation that complainant would not have sent goods to first accused but for the representation made by the first accused that the cheques would be honoured. This allegation is at variance with the earlier allegation made at the first portion of para No. 2. Apart from it, the ingredients of the offence under section 420 consists of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver-any property to any person. In the case before me, the representations alleged to have been made by first accused was that the cheques would be honoured. It is not stated where this representation was made. The first accused was doing business at London at the relevant time. The delivery of textiles was to the first accused at London. In para 1 of the complaint, it is alleged that the second accused promised to help this complainant provided the complainant exported goods viz. , textiles to first accusers company in London on usance credit basis. Then at the beginning of para 2, it is alleged that on this assurance, the complainant started exporting textiles to first accused at Raxshire, London. So the delivery was at London. As such, part of the cause of action to make out offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code had arisen at London. Then at the beginning of para 2, it is alleged that on this assurance, the complainant started exporting textiles to first accused at Raxshire, London. So the delivery was at London. As such, part of the cause of action to make out offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code had arisen at London. Regarding offence under section 467, Indian Indian Penal Code, the relevant allegation in para 2 reads that one of the cheques sent by first accused was returned with remarks that signature differs and that the cheque containing forged signature had been intentionally issued by first accused. Accused, No. 1 being at London, he is said to have sent forged cheque to the complainant and as such that forged cheque was sent from London. Hence the allegation reads that the forgery was at London. So regarding offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code, part of the cause of action had arisen at London and regarding offence under section 467, Indian Indian Penal Code, the forgery had taken place at London. In as much as the forged cheque was sent by the first accused who was at London, Mr. N. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied upon the ruling reported in Fakhrulla Khan v. Emperor wherein it was held that a Court in British India cannot try an offence merely because part of the consequences have ensued within its jurisdiction if some part of the offence has been committed in a native State. He further relied upon the ruling reported in Antony D Silva2, In re, wherein it was held that even assuming that part of the offence occurred in British India and a part in the Indian State, the prosecution in British India could not be proceeded with in the absence of certificate from the Political Agent as prescribed by the proviso to section 188, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. THE learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the ruling reported in K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab. In that case, it was held that before the provisions of section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could apply to a case, it was necessary to establish that the crime was committed outside British India. 7. THE learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the ruling reported in K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab. In that case, it was held that before the provisions of section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could apply to a case, it was necessary to establish that the crime was committed outside British India. In that case, the mis-representation by the appellant, the false certification by Henderson and the resulting payment having been made respectively at Simla, Jhansi and Lahore which were all in British India. In that case, the posting of the cheques was at Kolhapur. Kolhapur was within Indian State. It was contended that the posting of the cheque at Kolhapur would amount to delivery of them to the appellant at Kolhapur, the post office being the agent of the appellant. That contention was not accepted. So it was held that section 188, Criminal Procedure Code will not apply to that case. In the case before me, the cheques were sent by the first acc-used from London. But it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because cheques were posted at London, that would amount to delivery of the cheques at London and hence part of cause of action for offence under section 420, Indian Indian Penal Code had arisen at London. So this ruling would not apply to the facts of the case before me. Delivery of textiles in pursuance of the representation was only at London. It is the clear case set out in the complaint that the complainant started exporting textiles to first accused at Raxshire, London. Only in that way, part of the ingredients of the offence under section 420, Indian Indian Penal Code viz. , delivery of the property in pursuance of the representation made by the first accused at London, part of the cause of action for offence under section 420 Indian Indian Penal Code had arisen. Even in such a case certificate required under section 188 Criminal Procedure Code is necessary. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that since accused No. 1 can be tried in India, accused No. 2 also can be tried in India in view of section 223 (b), Criminal Procedure Code. Even in such a case certificate required under section 188 Criminal Procedure Code is necessary. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that since accused No. 1 can be tried in India, accused No. 2 also can be tried in India in view of section 223 (b), Criminal Procedure Code. In the instant case, as I have already pointed out, allegations in the complaint do not make out an offence under section 420, read with section 109, Indian Indian Penal Code. Hence the occasion to invoke section 223 (b), Criminal Procedure Code does not arise in this case. My discussion above would go to show that the allegations made against the second accused do not make out an offence under section 420 read with section 109, Indian Indian Penal Code. It is also clear that offence under section 467, Indian Indian Penal Code was committed at London and part of cause of action for offence under section 420, Indian Indian Penal Code had also arisen at London and in view of the absence of certificate under the proviso to section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution for those offences is also liable to be quashed. 8. IN view of the above, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. 10313 of 1985 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.