1. One Mr. Rashid Ahmad filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the district of Meerut against Mr. Rich, Manager of the French Motor Car Company, Delhi, for an offence under Section 408, Penal Code. On behalf of the defendant the question of jurisdiction was raised and both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have decided it in favour of the complainant. What was complained of was this. The complainant had negotiations with the defendant for the purchase of a lorry of which the body was afterwards made at Meerut. The entire lorry with the body was delivered to the complainant at Meerut when ha made over to the driver of the lorry for Mr. Rich a cheque for a sum to cover the price of chassis and insurance not only for the chassis but for the body as well. When the lorry happened to be burnt it was discovered that the body costing Rs. 500 had not been insured by the defendant who was alleged on these allegations to have committed a breach of trust with respect to the money which he received through his driver at Meerut by a cheque. The cheque was drawn on the Dehra Dun branch of the Imperial Bank and was cashed at Delhi.
2. The learned Judge has held that the Meerut Court had jurisdiction both under Section 179 and Section 181(2), Criminal P.C. 8. 179 runs as follows:
When a parson is accused of a commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or triad by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued.
3. The learned Judge has argued that the thing was done in Delhi by Mr. Rich in omitting to insure the body of the lorry, though, according to the allegation of the complainant, he had received money for such insurance also. The doing of the thing brought into play the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, but the consequence which was the loss by the omission of insurance to the complainant was suffered by the complainant in Meerut, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Meerut Court did arise. To meet this contention the applicant Mr. Rich's learned counsel quoted the ruling in the case of Girdhar Das v. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 All. 77, by a single Judge of this Court. Personally I am not clear whether the learned Judge desired to rule that the provisions of Section 179 would not apply to a case of criminal broach of trust because there were certain other provisions under Section 181(2) which would apply to criminal broach of trust. I do not remember it to have been held in any case that the provisions under Chap. 15, are all separately independent of one another, and if one of the provisions apply another would not. It is apparent that if such was the desire of the learned Judge to make a pronouncement, he has made that pronouncement in conflict with a continuous opinion of this Court ever since 1896. The first case to which my attention has been drawn is that of Queen-Empress v. O'Brien  19 All. 111. An employee of a company, the office of which was at Cawnpore, was charged with the offence punishable under Section 408, I.P.C. The complainant alleged that B being in charge on behalf of the company, at a place in Bengal, of certain goods belonging to the company and being ordered to return the same goods to Cawnpore, never did so, and failed to account for the goods or their value, to the loss of the company. On this allegation the learned Chief Justice held that the Court at Cawnpore had jurisdiction to inquire into the charge, because the consequence of B's acts, namely, the loss to the company, occurred in Cawnpore. Reference is given in the judgment to the provisions of Section 179, Criminal P.C.
4. The next is that of 1910: Emperor v. Mahadco  32 All. 397. The case of O'Brien was followed by a learned Judge of this Court. These two cases were followed by another learned Judge in Langridge v. Atkins  35 All. 29. Another ruling of 1912 quoted by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable: Ganeshi Lal v. Nand Kishore  34 All. 437. In this case the complainant firm had a branch shop at Gauriganj and the criminal breach of trust was committed at Gauriganj. For this reason a learned Judge held that the direct consequence happened in Gauriganj where the complainant firm had a shop, and the subsequent consequence of a loss at Cawnpore should not be taken into account to give the Cawnpore Courts jurisdiction. In this case the learned Judge specifically relied on the provisions of Section 179, Criminal P. C, but he did not think that in that particular case the direct consequence of loss ensued at Cawnpore. He was of opinion that the consequence ensued at Gauriganj where the complainant had a shop and a subsequent consequence of loss to the main firm would not give jurisdiction to the Courts where the main firm was situated. So far without any reference to the provisions of Section 181(2) I hold that the Meerut Court had jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Section 179, Criminal P.C. Coming to Section 181, the learned Judge was correct in pointing out that jurisdiction must follow the complaint and not the final decision.
5. In the present case the allegation is that part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received in Meerut. It was argued that the cheque was not payable in Meerut; nor was it cashed at Meerut. The cheque, however, was property as understood in Section 408. According to the definition, movable property is intended to include corporeal property of every description (Section 22, I.P. C). Under both sections, therefore, the criminal Courts at Meerut had jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 408. The complaint is filed, under that section. It is not very clear from what point of time a charge of cheating was started. As to cheating also the provisions of Section 179 would cover the offence and give the Court at Meerut jurisdiction.
6. I dismiss this application. The stay order shall be discharged.