' This is an application under section 561-A of the Cr. P. C. For quashment of the proceedings instituted on a direct complaint for offences under section 406/422, P. P. C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent Shaikh Abdul Rehman owns a Railway Agency and is running the business under the name of Faral Brothers. He has offices of the Railway Agency at Hyderabad, Sukkur and Shikarpur. On 18th January, 1974 he was allotted a Public Call Office telephone No, M P-S1.1-4079 at Sukkur, which was installed in the premises of Pakistan Railway Booking Agency, situated at Clock Tower Sukkur. He had entrusted the work. Of P C 0 to the applicant No, 1 Ghulam Murtaza Khan, who was the head booking clerk at the Railway Agency of the complainant. Applicants 2 and 3 were appointed as clerks to assist him. All the applicants were required to deposit all the earnings of the P. C.
0. Regularly, with the Telephone Department and were expected to maintain proper accounts of booking of trunk calls etc. And the money received therefi,e,
3. The respondent No, 1, Abdul Rehman was permanently residing at Hyderabad. After every 2, 3 months he used to go to Sukkur, to check on the work of P C 0, as well as, functioning of his staff.
The applicants used to visit Hyderabad to give the accounts to the respondent No, 1 of the money realized by them.
4. When, in the month of July, 1977, the respondent No,
1. Visited Sukkur, he found the P. C. 0 Office locked. On inquiries, he came to know, that since long, the office was found locked and the whereabouts of the applicants were not known. The local police was informed and with their assistance the locks were broken open. It was found that the telephone as well as, the record maintained, in respect of the trunk-calls-booking, were also missing. A search continued for tracing out the applicants till April, 1978, when applicants I and 2 were located at Hyderabad. They informed the respondent that the P .C.
0. Office was closed down, by the Telephone Department and the Officers of that Department took away the Telephone instruments, as well as the records, in connection with some departmental inquiries.
5. When respondent No, 1 approached the Telephone Department, it was found out that the version of the applicants was false. It was further revealed that huge amounts realized by the applicants, on account of the P. C.
0. Were misappropriated by them.
6. Due to the non-payment of the dues, the P.C.O. Was disconnected on 8th March, 1976. No accounts were furnished by the applicants to the respondent No, 1 of the money that was realized by them. When all efforts to realize the money had failed, a direct complaint was presented in the Court. Preliminary Enquiry was ordered, and after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court, issued the process under section 406/422 P.
P. C. Against the applicants.
7. The main question in this application is the point of jurisdiction, whether the Court at Hyderabad had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and issue process against the applicants, when the alleged offences had taken place at Sukkur. It is undisputed that the amounts alleged were received by the applicants at Sukkur, where they were allegedly misappropriated by them, instead of remitting to the respondent No, 1.
8, In support of this application, the learned counsel Mr. Pir Bux Khamisani has relied upon section 181 (2), Cr. P. C. Which reads as under "The offence of criminal misappropriation or a criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within ' the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained by the accused persons or the offence was committed."
The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Altaf Hussain (1) The case of the prosecution is that the alleged amounts of money were collected by the applicants, at Sukkur, which were misappropriated by them also at Sukkur.
9. In view of such a position, the Court at Hyderabad would have no requisite jurisdiction to try the offence.
10. On the other hand Mr. S. A. Hasnain has pointed out section 179, Cr. P. C. And has argued that since the applicants were traced out at Hyderabad and the bailable warrants issued by the Court, were served upon them there, consequently, the Court at Hyderabad will have the jurisdiction to try the offences. Such an argument is not tenable. Section 179, Cr. P. C. Reads as under :- "When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reasons of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued."
' From the plain reading of this section, it is clear that the act done and the consequence, which is ensued therefrom, did not take place at Hyderabad. The contention of Mr. Hasnain therefore, has no force, for the simple reason that section 179, Cr. P. C, contemplate cases, where the act done and the consequence ensuing therefrom, together)B constituted the offence, which was complete in itself. Several! Authorities for and against were cited, which it is needless to reproduce, in view of the above-noted case of Altaf Hussain referred to above, wherein, most of the case law on the point has been discussed.
11. Mr. A. B. Leghari appearing for A.-G. For the State, has supported the application.
12. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed, solely, on the ground of jurisdiction that the Court of A. D. M. VI, Hyderabad, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, and the proceedings pending in that Court are accordingly quashed.