Chhangani, J.—This is a revision by accused Munnalal and is directed against the order of the Special Judicial (Railway) Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 5th March, 1963 over-ruling the accuseds objection to the competence of the Magistrate to try the case. The petitioner challenged the same order in a revision before the court of Session, Jodhpur, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 15th May, 1963 upheld the order of the Railway Magistrate, and dismissed the revision.

2. The facts giving rise to the revision may be briefly stated as follows— One Chandanmal of Ladnun boarded Jodhpur Mail at Delhi on the night intervening 10th and 11th July, 1962, his destination being Ladnun. He had an aluminium box containing jewellery with him which he kept in his bedding. During the course of journey, he went to sleep and woke up when the train was stopping at Loharu Railway Junction ; looked for his bedding and found it missing. On enquiry from the fellow travellers he learnt that some person had just got down at Loharu Junction platform and he might have taken away his bedding. The complainant got down at the Railway Station and searched for the man but could not find him. He made no report at Loharu Railway Police Station but continued the journey by the same train upto Ratangarh. At Ratangarh he lodged a report in writing to the Railway Police alleging specifically that a theft had been committed by some one between Railway Station Rewari and Loharu. This report was sent to the Railway Police, Loharu for investigation. The report, however, was not entertained by the Police having jurisdiction over Loharu Junction. The Station House Officer, Ratangarh, however, himself commenced investigation. Later on some alleged stolen ornaments and jewellery were recovered at the instance of the petitioner and other co-accused at Etawah, Allahabad, and Jubbalpore between 6th and 15th of August, 1962. The Government Railway Police Ratangarh then submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioner in the court of Railway Magistrate, Jodhpur on or about 16th November, 1962 under sec. 411, Indian Penal Code.

3. The accused petitioner by his application dated 4th March, 1963 raised an objection that the Railway Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try and take cognizance of the case against the petitioner as neither the offence of theft nor the offence of receiving stolen property was committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The Railway Magistrate accepted the factual position but relying upon the provisions of sec. 183 Criminal Procedure Code, over ruled the petitioners objection and held that he has jurisdiction to try the case. The Additional Sessions Judge has also arrived at the same conclusion on a consideration of the combined effects of sec. 181 sub-sec. (3) and sec. 183 Criminal Procedure Code.

4. I have heard Mr. Bhargava for the petitioner and Mr. Amrit Raj, Assistant Government Advocate for the State.

5. The learned counsel for both the parties in spite of much search could not cite any appropriate case bearing on the controversy raised before me. Consequently, it has become necessary to decide the case on a consideration of the statutory provisions as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The law regarding the venue of trial of offences of receiving or retaining stolen property is to be found in illustration (b) of sec. 180 and sec. 181 sub-sec. (3), Criminal Procedure Code. It will be proper to read them at this stage. Illustration (b) of sec. 180, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows—

"A charge of receiving or retaining stolen goods may be inquired into or tried either by the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the goods were stolen, or by any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of them at any time dishonestly received or were retained."

Sec. 181 sub-sec. (3), Criminal P. C. is worded as follows—

"The offence of theft, or any offence which includes theft or th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document