1. The first point raised in the appeal is that the Madras Court had no jurisdiction. The facts, for the purpose of the argument, are that accused sent from Madras by value payable parcel to P.W. 3 at Hyderabad, in consequence of an order by P.W. 3 to him for four boxes of tea, four boxes of which P.W. 3 got delivery at Hyderabad on payment of the value payable amount of Rs. 168 and that when P.W. 3 opened the boxes he found they contained saw dust. Thus, in consequence of the false representation made by accused that he was sending four boxes of tea, P.W. 3 was deceived and thereby induced to pay over the value payable amount to the post office for payment to accused. It is urged for appellant that the delivery of the money in consequence of the deceit was wholly in Hyderabad. The Crown Prosecutor contends that the delivery was not complete until the Post Office had handed the money to accused, at Madras. I do not think the latter contention is sound. The delivery contemplated by Section 415, Indian PenaJ Code, is delivery to 'any person,' a phrase which will include even an agent for the purpose of delivery if the Post Office can, vis a vis P.W. 3, be deemed such an agent. So far as P.W. 3 was concerned, the deceit and the delivery in consequence of the deceit were complete when the money was handed over to the Post Office, and the subsequent delivery by the Post Office to accused was not a necessary ingredient of the offence. The offence was complete without that second delivery. Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, will not then according to the ruling of this Court in Krishnamachari v. Messrs. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1915) ILR 39M 576 : 29 MLJ 178. cover the case. The offence was completely committed in Hyderabad and the Madras Court has therefore no jurisdiction. I arrive at this conclusion with reluctance as the point was never taken in the Lower Court. But it follows that the conviction cannot stand and must be and is hereby set aside and the sentence cancelled. Appellant will be set at liberty.
2. The proceedings are quashed for want of jurisdiction. It is open to the authorities to take any fresh action they may be advised to take.