The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 and the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly in relation to the offences of conspiracy to cheat, cheating, abetment of cheating, and criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duty.

1. These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question - in fact two of them are from the same case

2. The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C.C. Nos.1 and 2 on the file of Shri T.R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special judges appointed under S.6 (i) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under S.7 (2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R.P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R.P. No. 55 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R.P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18th January 1958, the learned special judge over-ruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under S.251-A (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal ground taken being, again, want of jurisdiction.

3. The facts relevant for the present purpose are brief: Accused 1 and 2 in each case whom I shall hereafter call the contractors (or rather the respective firms of which they are partners.) entered into contracts with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, for the supply of timber (bottom boards for railway wagons) of certain specified varieties to the Central Railway administration. In C. C. No. 1, the contract was for the supply of a total quantity of 1306.5 tons, at a cost of about Rs. 4 lakhs, in three varieties of hardwood, Aini, Kalpine and Haldu. The contract was concluded in July 1955, and the several consignees were the District Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Matunga, Bombay, the Assistant Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Lallaguda (Hyderabad) and the Assistant Controller of Stores, Central Railway, Jhansi (U. P). In C.C.2, the contract was for the supply of a total quantity of 307 1/2 tons at a cost of about Rs. 95,000 in the species, Benteak, Biney and Haldu to the same consignees, and the contract was concluded in February 1956. The supply in both the cases was completed by August 1956, and, in accordance with the terms of the contract, on despatch of the several consignments, the contractors from time to time drew 90 percent of the price thereof, from the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, New Delhi, on the strength of certificates issued by the inspecting officers nominated by the Director-General of Supplies to the effect that the timber was of the contract quality. The contractors in both the cases reside and carry on business at Bombay, and their bills were submitted from that place. The bills were passed at New Delhi by the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer (on behalf of the Pay and Accounts Officer) and payment was made by him by means of cheques

issued at New Delhi and encashed by the contractors at Bombay.

4. The supplies in both the cases were made mainly from this State, and 521 out of the 1306.5 tons concerned in C. C. No.1 and 221 out of the 307.5 tons concerned in C. C. No. 2 were inspected and passed at various places within this State by an inspecting officer by the name of Thomson (an officer of the Central Railway, stationed at Bombay,) who is the 6th accused in C. C. No.1 and who was originally the 5th accused and now, after the discharge of the original 4th accused by the special judge, is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 2. Certificates, or inspection notes as they are called, to the effect that the timber supplied was of the contract quality were issued to the contractors by Thomson at the several places within this State, & it is on the strength of these certificates which they attached to their bills (which again gave full particulars of the quantity, quality and price of the timber supplied) that the contractors drew the money from the Pay and Accounts Officer.

5. Accused 3, and 4 and 5 in C. C. No.1 and the 3rd accused in C.C. No.