1972 (7) TMI 116 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge based on the offense committed outside India.
2. Maintainability of the revision petition challenging the charge framed against the petitioner.
3. Interpretation of the offense of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Determining the place of deceiving and delivery of property for establishing jurisdiction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Challenge
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try him for an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, contending that the offense was committed outside India. The petitioner argued that both the deceiving and the delivery of property occurred in Malaya, while the prosecution asserted that they took place in India. The court analyzed previous cases and held that if any part of the offense occurred outside India, Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the court concluded that the act of deceiving the complainants took place in Malaya, necessitating a certificate of the Political Agent or State Government for the Indian Court to have jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Maintainability of Revision Petition
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the timeliness of the revision petition challenging the charge framed against the petitioner. The court rejected the objection, stating that the petitioner's application under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be filed at any time, irrespective of when the charge was framed. The court found the revision petition filed within time and overruled the objection raised by the State.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Cheating Offense
The court referred to Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offense of cheating. It highlighted the two essential ingredients of cheating: deceiving a person and fraudulently inducing the person to deliver property. The court emphasized the importance of establishing where the deceiving and delivery of property occurred to determine jurisdiction under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue 4: Determining Place of Deceiving and Delivery
Drawing parallels from past judgments, the court analyzed whether the deceiving and delivery of property took place in Malaya or India. By examining a case where a similar jurisdictional challenge was raised, the court concluded that a part of the offense, specifically the deceiving of the complainants, occurred in Malaya. Consequently, the court accepted the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, quashing the charge framed by the Magistrate and the pending proceedings against the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdictional considerations when offenses involve actions outside India, as per the provisions of Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code.