Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Articles 177, 181 (3) A person may be prosecuted by a court in whose theft the property was stolen, or the court. In whose jurisdiction the property was. Found that while Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that every offense will usually be investigated by a court and prosecuted by a court within its jurisdiction, section 181 (3) of the same Code Allows a person to be prosecuted for possession of stolen property by a court whose jurisdiction was theft or for a court whose stolen property was found. Gone
P. L. D. 1949 Baluchistan, 15
Before Saker. J. C.
MARU KHAN and others‑Accused‑Applicants
Versus
CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous application, decided on 20th August, 1949, under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for transfer of case.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 177, 181 (3)‑Person found in possession of stolen property can be tried either by Court within whose jurisdiction theft was committed or by Court within whose jurisdiction property was found.
While section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed, section 181 (3) of the same Code permits a person found in possession of stolen property to be tried either by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence of theft was committed or by the Court within whose jurisdiction the stolen property was found. ‑
A. I. R. 1934 All. 455 (2) referred to.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Non‑availability of pleader or infrequency of train service not good grounds for transfer.
Order
Saker, J. C.‑----This is an :application under section 526, Criminal. Procedure Code for transfer of a case pending in the Court of the Assistant Political Agent and Magistrate 1st Class, Zhob, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction in Quetta. The grounds urged by the petitioners mainly are :‑
(a) that as the alleged stolen property was recovered from the petitioners' godowns in Quetta the case, so far as the offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code is concerned, is triable by Quetta Courts only
(b) that no pleader is available either at Hindubagh or at Fortsandeman ;
and
(c) that as the train service is only bi‑weekly between Quetta and Fortsandeman, it will be very inconvenient and expensive for the petitioners to take a pleader from Quetta to Hindubagh on each date of hearing.
Ground (a), which raises a legal point, appears to be based on z Mis understanding of the law. While section i77 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within wh3se jurisdiction it was committed, section 181 (3) of the same Code permits a person found in possession of stolen property to be tried either by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence of theft was committed or by the Court within whose jurisdiction the stolen property was found. My views are fully supported by A. I. R. 1934 All. p. 455 (Z). The offence of theft in this particular case is alleged to have been committed in Hindubagh.
The grounds (b) and (c) do not obviously bring this case within the purview of any of the clauses of subsection (1) of section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which alone a transfer can be ordered. Both these grounds are of general application and if cases from Zhob District were allowed to be transferred merely on grounds of non‑availability of pleader of trains almost all of the pending cases, or at least a great majority of them, will have to be withdrawn from that District and referred to Quetta Courts. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept these reasons for transfer.
It is further significant that the Assistant Political Agent, Zhob, is hearing this case at Hindubagh which is much nearer to Quetta than Fortsandeman. This presumably minimizes inconvenience to the parties and their witnesses.
Accordingly I do not consider that the grounds put forward by the applicants are adequate to justify the transfer applied for and accordingly 1 reject this application.
A. H. Application rejected.
Related judgments — Judicial Commissioner Court Balochistan, 1949
