Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 169 (CAL)

Dhirendra Majumder v. State

1994-05-16

Arun Kumar Dutta

body1994
Judgment 1. THE instant Revisional Application by the Complainant-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code) is directed against the Order dated 31st December. 1992 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 9th Court, Calcutta, in Case No. C/531 of 1992 before him holding that he has no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid case, acquitting the Opposite-Party No. 2-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) and discharging him from the bail bond in terms thereof, for the reasons recorded therein. 2. THE aforesaid case arose out of a petition of complaint filed by the Petitioner against the accused for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Sections 406/420, I.P.C., on the allegations made therein. The accused having filed a petition before the Learned Magistrate that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case as the cause of action far the alleged offence is stated to have arisen outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the Learned Magistrate had allowed his application by passing the aforesaid impugned order. The accused had sought to contend that the relevant cheque had been, issued by him, drawn on the United Bank of India at Sodpur Branch, which was produced at the said Bank at Sodpur, where it was dishonoured. The delivery in goods in question is also stated to have been made by the Petitioner from his factory at Sodpur, outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate appears to have accepted the said contention of the accused while passing the impugned order. During the hearing of this Revisional Application before this Court, the Learned Advocate for the accused had referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in mark Finance and investment Co. Put. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court at Bombay and Ors. , 1992 (1) C. H. N. 200 in support of his contention. 3. During the hearing of this Revisional Application before this Court, the Learned Advocate for the accused had referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in mark Finance and investment Co. Put. Ltd. and Anr. v. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court at Bombay and Ors. , 1992 (1) C. H. N. 200 in support of his contention. 3. IT would, however, oddly appear from the petition of complaint on record that the Petitioner had clearly contended therein that the negotiation for the alleged transaction between the parties had taken place on the relevant date at his registered office at 9, Mango Lane, 2nd floor, Flat No. 27, Calcutta-700 001, within Police Station-Hare Street, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. It is further clearly averred therein that the accused had placed order for the goods in question at his (Petitioner's aforesaid registered office at Calcutta. It would also oddly appear from the letter dated 26-11-91 by the accused to the Petitioner's Company that he as well has sought for delivery of the article in question from 9, Mango Lane, Calcutta-700 001. The question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the case at this stage would depend upon the averments made in the petition of complaint and not on the basis of the plea or defence to be taken by the accused hereinafter. Even most charitably accepting the contention of the accused on the point of jurisdiction in toto, the petition of complaint, as it is, would prima facie seem to suggest that a part of the cause of action for the alleged offence had arisen at 9, Mango Lane, Calcutta-1, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The Learned Magistrate appears to have gone grievously wrong in holding, with the petition of complaint, as it is, that the cause of action for the alleged offence had wholly arisen at Sodepur, outside the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolital Magistrate at Calcutta. Having regard to the allegations made in the petition of complaint and the provisions of Section 177, read with Section 179 of the Code, there could be little mistaking that a part of the alleged offence and the consequence thereof had clearly ensued at 9, Mango Lane, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. Having regard to the allegations made in the petition of complaint and the provisions of Section 177, read with Section 179 of the Code, there could be little mistaking that a part of the alleged offence and the consequence thereof had clearly ensued at 9, Mango Lane, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The impugned order clearly, therefore, appears to suffer from incorrectness, staring on the face of the record, calling for interference by this Court in Revision. 4. UPON the premises above the instant Revisional Application should clearly succeed. All the more so, the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate, on the face: of it, could neither be sustained according to law. The Learned Magistrate: by his aforesaid impugned order had held that this court had no jurisdiction to try the instant case. Even so, he had acquitted the accused thereunder in the same breath. If the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, he could neither have any jurisdiction to acquit the accused, the way he did. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on that score as well. In the result, the Revisional Application succeeds. The impugned order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned be accordingly hereby set aside. The Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the relevant case before him according to law. 5. IN view of the nature of the alleged offence and in view of the fact that the relevant case had been pending quite sometime, the Learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and he shall seek to dispose of the same, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Application allowed.