State of Maharashtra vs Mahavirohan and Mohanlalji and Others

W.M. Sambrej, J.—Aggrieved by the Order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 8th Court, Nagpur, discharging all the four non-applicants-accused of an offence punishable under Sec 408 of the LP.C. the State has filed this revision.

Main contention of the State is that the non-applicants have filed an application forgetting them discharged from the alleged offence punishable u/s 408 of the I.P.C. on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted. It is contended by the non-applicants that the transaction had taken place at Burhanpurand, as such, the Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to try the instant case. The complainant Amolak Singh who carries on the business of transport who is the partner of M/S. Janata Road Lines, was entrusted with the goods to be delivered to the non-applicant No. 2 - accused No. 2 for delivering it to its consignee. The goods were to be delivered on submitting bilty by them, but instead of that the accused No. 2 delivered the consignment without obtaining bilty. As such, a breach has been committed by the accused No. 2 and, hence, the complaint came to be filed. The complaint has contended that because of this breach of condition, the complainant suffered a loss and, hence, the said complaint was filed of which the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that this act on the part of the accused persons is disregarding the directions of the complainant was a deliberate attempt to commit an offence. It is further contended that Nagpur Court has no jurisdiction and, as such, the Order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the learned Magistrate, Nagpur discharging the accused is liable to be quashed and set aside.

It is further stated that the loss caused to the complainant has already been compensated and from the complaint it appears that it is only a technical offence now remains to be considered at this stage as the matter has already been settled between the parties. In view of this, I see no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Magistrate.

In the result, the criminal revision application No. l 19 of 1984 stands dismissed.