Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Application No: 471 of 1964, decided on 20th January 1966.

, S. 177-Place of inquiry or trial-Complaint for offence under S. 420, P. P. C. -Com plainant contacting accused at Karachi and asking for return of certain amounts-Accused making false representation to complainant at Karachi and later issuing cheques which were subse quently dishonoured-Courts at Karachi, held, had, jurisdiction to try offence.

A. G. Siddiqui for Zia Qureshi for Petitioner.

Sakema Nasiruddin for A. A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 20th January 1966.

The petitioner was sent up for trial for an offence under section 420, P. P. C. before the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Karachi for cheating one Obaidullah Khan Proprietor, Ikram Bus Service. The relevant facts for consideration in this petition are that Obaidullah Khan lodged a First Information Report on the 9th of October 1963, to the effect that he had receiv ed Bulletin No. 14 dated November 1962 by post from Pak Asian Consolidated Enterprises, Karachi offering supply of Firestone Tyres. Accordingly, he sent an order by telegram dated the 8th November 1962, for the purchase of 10 tyres and tubes for his company known as Ikram Bus Service. In reply he received a telegram asking for 25 % amount in advance. He sent a crossed draft dated 19th November 1962, for Rs. 1,600 by registered post addressed to the aforesaid company. His friend also wanted 10 tyres and tubes and he, therefore, sent another crossed draft, on the next day, for Rs. 1,600 to Pak Asian Consolidated Enterprises, Karachi as an advanced payment. After waiting for a long period, he sent a telegram to Karachi requesting the delivery of the goods. He finally sent letters to the aforesaid company to return the amount if they could not supply the tyres and the tubes. On the 1st of December 1962, he received a telegram from the company that there was some delay in the supply and he should wait for sometime more. He, however, came to Karachi on the 14th December 1962, and contacted Mr. Ziauddin, Proprietor of Pak Asian Consolidated Enterprises, Karachi. Mr. Ziauddin tried to postpone the matter but ultimately gave a cheque dated the 31st December 1962, for RL 1,600 and promised, in writing, to pay the balance of Rs. 1,600 by 16-12-1962, in cash. The case of Obaidullah Khan further is that he remained in Park Hotel, Karachi up to 17th December 194 on which date Mr. Ziauddin paid a further sum of Rs. 200 in cash and issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 1,400 and promised that the cheque would be cashed. The cheques having not been honoured, Obaidullah Khan made the report to the police as stated above.

2. At the commencement of the trial before the Additional City Magistrate, the petitioner raised a preliminary point as to jurisdiction of the Court to try the case. The objection found favour with the learned Additional City Magistrate, Karachi (Junejo Muhammad Khan) and he discharged the petitioner under section 253 (2), Cr. P. C. for want of jurisdiction. This order was challenged by the State in Revision before the learned City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi who allowed the revision application by an order dated 31 at July 1964, on the ground that the amount paid by the complainant having been actually received by the petitioner at Karachi, the Courts at Karachi had the jurisdiction to try the offence.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly contended that the learned City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi was not competent in law to direct a further enquiry into the matter under the provisions of section 436, Cr. P. C. as the learned Additional City Magistrate had held that he had no jurisdiction to try the offence and this order does not come within the provisions of section 253 (2), Cr. P. C. The other contention raised was that although it may be said that 'false representation' initiated from Karachi, but the actual "inducement" took place at Mardan and, therefore, the offence of cheating, if any, was committed at Mardan and not at Karachi.

4. That first contention raised by the learned counsel is of academic nature as I treated this petition under section 439, Cr. P. C. as the one against the order passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate. The second contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted on the facts of this case. The perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner had come Karachi and he contacted the petitioner who made some fat representations to him at Karachi and issued cheques which were subsequently dishonoured. It is not possible to decide in the proceedings whether the offences, if any, could fall within the scope of section 420, P. P. C. or section 406, P. P. C. or any other offence punishable under the law. The complaint, however; indicates commission of a criminal offence at Karachi and on this view of the matter the Courts at Karachi have jurisdiction to try the offence.

5. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 16th May 1964, passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate, Karachi and direct that the case against the petitioner be tried by a Magistrate of Competent jurisdiction to be nominated by the City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi.

6. For the reasons given above, the revision application is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.