P.H. Metcalfe vs J. Watson

Bucknill, J.—This is a miscellaneous criminal application relative to the venue of the hearing of a charge which has been made against the applicant of an offence against the provisions of Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's petition sets out three grounds upon which lie asks that his trial should not take place at Buxar, where it had been instituted before the Sub-Divisional Officer, but at Gsya.

The only point which has now been placed before me for serious consideration is as to whether the trial ought to take place at Gaya and not at Buxar. It was suggested, in the first place, that no offence had been committed and that the proceedings instituted by the Sub-Divisional Officer at Buxar should be quashed. I have pointed out, however, that I cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, form any confident view as to whether or not any offence had been committed. This part of the application was, therefore, not pressed.

It was then argued by the learned Counsel who appeared for the applicant that under the circumstances of this case: there was no jurisdiction in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer at Buxar to try this case. I do not think it is necessary to enter in any great detail into the facts of the case. It is sufficient to say that the complainant charges the accused with having created him over a cheque. This cheque was said to have been given by the accused to the complainant in part payment for a business which the accused purchased for a considerable sum off money from the complainant and another gentleman. The cheque on presentation was not paid by the Bank, and, as a result of certain correspondence which passed between the complainant and the accused, this charge has been framed. It is pointed out by the learned Vakil who appears for the complainant that the crucial letter by which for the first time the complainant was clearly led to realise that there had been an intention to cheat on the part of the accused was received by him at Buxar; and I think that on the authority of Regina v. Rogers (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 28 it is quite dear that there was jurisdiction in this case to try the accused at Buxar. However, apart from that question, I think that it is necessary for me to give the matter other considerations. There is ample power vested in this Court to direct that a trial should take place in one or another district. In this particular case it seems to me that it was certainly open for the prosecution to have been initiated either in Gaya or in Buxar, or, I am inclined to think, in. Calcutta also.

The complainant has a business at Buxar, but the accused carries on his business, which is that, I gather, of a rice mill, at "Gaya. In his application the applicant says that it would suit the convenience of most persons concerned if the trial should take place at Gaya. Now, so far as this trial is concerned, I have no great detail as to the class or number of witnesses whom it will be necessary to call, It is pointed out that it matters very little really whether the Bank witness or witnesses who may have to come from Calcutta have to travel to Buxar or to Gaya; and it appears to me that the principal question here is as to whether it is right and proper that this applicant (the accused) should have to go over to Buxar in order to stand his trial, possibly having to go there on more than one occasion, or whether the prosecutor who is putting the law into motion should go to Gaya where the accused person resides. I think that on the whole it is right and proper that the latter course should be adopted. I think that it is only fair that this accused person should stand his trial at the place where be resides and at the place where certainly the prosecution could have been initiated. The case, therefore, will be transferred from the Sub-Divisional Officer of Buxar to the District Magistrate of Gaya for disposal.