Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs The State Of Bombay on 6 September, 1957
(5) In support of his contention that the Act of deceiving took place only in Malaya, the petitioner seeks to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of Bombay . The facts of that case be briefly stated :- A businessman of Goa contacted a commission Agent at Bombay for the import of rice to Goa. The Commission Agent in turn contacted one Jasawalla who was also a Commission Agent who happened to know businessmen in Karachi by the name of Mobrik Ali Ahmed. As a result of exchange of telegrams, letters and telephones messages between Jasawalla and Mobarik Ali Ahmed on the one side and Jasawalla and the Goa businessman and his commission agent on the other, contract was brought about for the purchase of 1,200 tons of rice at the rate of 51 per ton to be shipped from Karachi to Goa. In pursuance of this contract, Goa businessman gave about Rs. 5,50,000.00 to Jaswalla who in turn passed the money on to Mobarik Ali Ahmed. The latter, however, failed to deliver the rice and he was prosecuted at Bombay for an offence under section 420 IPC. The jurisdiction of the Bombay Court was challenged by Mobrik Ali Ahmed on the ground that both the ingreidents of the offence of cheating, namely, the misrepresentation as well as the delivery of property, took place in Karachi and not in India and that, therefore, the Indian Court had no jurisdiction to try him. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and on the facts of that case held that both the misrepresentation as well as the delivery of property had taken place at Bombay and that, therefore, the Bombay Court had jurisdiction. This decision would help the petitioner, because the Supreme Court held that although Mobarik Ali Ahmed was not present in Bombay at any time and although Mobarik Ali Ahmed had written letters to the Goa businessman from Karachi or had talked to him on the telephone from Karachi or had sent telegrams to him from Karachi, the misrepresentation by Mobrik Ali Ahmed to the Goa businessman was made not at Karachi but was made at Bombay, because it was only when these letters and telegrams reached the Goa businessman at Bombay and Mobrik Ali Ahmed could contact the Goa businessman at Bombay that the mis presentation is said to have taken place. In the present case, "although the petitioner had printed the pamphlets in India and although he had issued the pamphlets from India it was only when they reach ed the complainnats in Malaya that the misrepresentation or the deceit could be said to have taken place. Therefore one of the ingredients of the offence of cheating must be held to have taken place at Malaya.
Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
T. Fakhrulla Khan And Ors. vs Emperor on 4 February, 1935
The Learned Judge then proceeded to refer to a number of decisions of the Madras High Court and in particular referred to the decisions of the divi- sion Bench of that Court in T. Fakhrnlla Khan and others V. Emperor in which it was specifically laid down that the British Indian Court had no jurisdiction under sections 188 Cr. P.C. as amended 1923 to try an offence committed wholly or partly in the Native State without a certificate of the political Agent. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge.
1