Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 443 (JK)

Susheel Dhar v. State Of J. &K.

2008-11-20

J.P.SINGH

body2008
J.P. Singh, J. 1. These two revision petitions are directed against order dated 31st March, 2006 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby while upholding Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sub-Judge, Jammus Order of 9.9.2005, he had rejected petitioners revision petitions saying that learned Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that the Court had the jurisdiction to try the petitioners in the two police challans which had been filed against them under Sections 406, 420, 120B RPC. 2. Raising a preliminary objection as to maintainability of these revision petitions, learned State counsel submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 435(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting the maintainability of second revision, the petitioners are disentitled to maintain their revision petitions. 3. Conceding the preliminary objection of learned State counsel, Mr. Abhinav Sharma submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers to correct the error which learned Session Judge had committed in upholding learned Judicial Magistrates order whereby he had held that the offence punishable under Section 406 RPC had been committed by the petitioners within his jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that as the misappropriated amount is alleged to have been received at Indore, so the Courts in Jammu would have no jurisdiction to try the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B RPC. 4. Per Contra, Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned AAG submitted that there is sufficient evidence on records to indicate that the offence of misappropriation had been committed in Jammu too where the petitioners had received part of the misappropriated amount, so the Courts in Jammu were jurisdictionally competent to take cognizance of the offences and try the petitioners. He submitted that petitioners prayer for entertaining these petitions under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed in view of the dismissal of their earlier 561-A Cr.P.C. No. 1/2004 which had been preferred by them when a prima facie case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC had been found to have been established against them by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the petitioners counsels submission that Courts in Jammu have no jurisdiction to try the petitioners because the misappropriated amount had been received at Indore, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the petitioners counsels submission that Courts in Jammu have no jurisdiction to try the petitioners because the misappropriated amount had been received at Indore, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. 6. Both the Courts below have found on facts that part of the misappropriated amount had been received by the petitioners from the complainant within the jurisdiction of the Court. I do not find any material on records, on the basis whereof, a contrary view may be permissible on the basis of material which is available on records. 7. That apart, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the misappropriated amount had been received outside the jurisdiction of the Court, which, however, is not the factual position in the present case, the provisions of Section 181 Cr.P.C. would still have no application to oust the jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Jammu because the petitioners in the present case have been charged not only for criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of Trust but also for cheating and criminal conspiracy punishable under Sections 420 and 120B RPC. Jurisdiction of the Court to try these offences shall thus be governed by the provisions of Section 180 and not 181, as urged by the petitioners counsel. 8. For all what has been said above, I do not find any cause to have been made out by the petitioners warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. These revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed as untenable in view of the provisions of Section 435(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Records be sent back forthwith.