The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fairness in criminal prosecutions, the mandatory nature of the inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C., and the requirement for supporting documents to establish the ingredients of alleged criminal offences.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 29.9.2005 passed. by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Munger, in Complaint Case No. 765 (C) of 2005 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 419 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the complainant is that on a certain date he had purchased four packets of Pan Parag Pan Masala. In each packet was a Scratch Card and 50 pouches of Pan Parag. It was written on the Scratch Card that on scratching the san1C the buyer would get, prize of Rs. 5 to 50. When the petitioner scratched the first Card. he found Rs. 7/- written on it. In the next two, only Rs. 3/- was written and, hence he did not scratch the rest. He complained that the accused persons in order to cheat, the public at large had made false promises, as regards quantum of prize money.

4. The admitted position is that the complainant did not annex any documents and the Court took cognizance only on the basis of the oral allegations levelled in the complaint, complainants statement on Solemn Affirmation and oral supporting statements of two witnesses.

5. The petitioner happens to be the Managing Director of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. residing in Kanpur and Pan Parag is in wide circulation and a very popular product of the company.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting allegations contained in the complaint as dealt with earlier there being complete paucity of any ingredient to satisfy the basic requirement of any criminal offence, the present prosecution is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner being the Managing Director is personally liable for the misrepresentation that a person would receive prize money of Rs. 5 to 50 on scratching the card, whereas on two of them only Rs. 3 was written, hence, he should be prosecuted for false representation and cheating. He relics on a decision reported in Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 979, wherein, it was held that false representation was one of the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

8. Before I proceed with the merits of the case. I would like to discuss the question of jurisdiction which is of some importance in the scheme of a criminal prosecution and is explained in the context of the present case.

9. To elaborate, in my opinion, in a criminal trial there are three aspects of territorial jurisdiction:-

(i) That of the offence i.e. where it was committed.

(ii) The residence of the Accused.

(iii) That of the complainant.

10. Our Code of Criminal Procedure, a self contained Code is an amazing piece of legislation which keeps in mind the various contingencies from the standpoint of all the three components of a trial i.e. the Court, the complainant, the Accused and protects and balances interest of all the three. There is complete assurance that none of the three would be unfairly disadvantaged and ensures that there is level playing ground for each of them as we shall shortly see.

11. The scheme of the Code provides creation of Courts in every State unambiguously defining both their territorial jurisdiction as well as the quantum of punishment they can impose vide the First Schedule under the head of Classification of Offences appended to the Code.

Establishment of Courts and their jurisdiction:-

"6. Classes of Criminal Courts – Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:-

(i) Courts of Session.

(ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate.

(iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class.

(iv) Executive Magistrates.

11. Courts of Judicial Magistrates – (1) In every district (not being a metropolitan