Judgment:
Lokur, J.
1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the District Magistrate, West Khandesh, taking cognizance on five charge-sheets sent by the Nandurbar police-station against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and transferring them to the Resident Magistrate, Nandurbar, for trial according to law under Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same charge-sheets had been first sent by the Police Sub-Inspector of Nandurbar town to the Resident Magistrate himself. The petitioner then appeared before the learned Magistrate and objected to his trial by him on the ground that he had no jurisdiction, as no part of the offence alleged against him was committed in any place within his jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate upheld the contention and returned the charge-sheets to the Police Sub-Inspector in order that they might be filed in the competent Court.
2. The facts alleged are that the petitioner sent letters to various merchants of Bombay ordering goods from them and promising to pay their bills on receipt of the goods. But it is alleged that he never intended to make the payments, and when the goods were received by him, he accepted them and absconded. Five such merchants filed complaints at the police-station and after investigation five charge-sheets were sent by the Police Sub-Inspector.
3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that after the First Class Resident Magistrate at Nandurbar had passed an order that he had no jurisdiction to try the cases as the offences were committed in Bombay, the District Magistrate should not have taken cognizance on the same charge-sheets without giving a hearing to the petitioner and; without making a reference to this Court to have the order of the Resident Magistrate, Nandurbar, set aside). It is not necessary to go into that question, since, even if the District Magistrate had made a reference to this Court, the petitioner would not have been in any better position. Since the matter is now before us, we would dispose of it on merits.
4. The learned Resident Magistrate relied upon the rulings in Krishnamachari v. Messrs. Shaw, Wallace & Co. (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 576 and M.A. Kaleek v. Emperor (1926) 28 Cr. L.J. 452 and thought that under Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code he had no jurisdiction to try the cases. But Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that when an offence is committed partly in one local area: and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. The posting of the order by the petitioner at Nandurbar was one of the series of acts which went to make up the offence of cheating. Thus in Shiamji v. Emperor (1922) 23 Cr. L.J. 210 where railway receipts were sent from Harda and Rs. 40,000 were obtained on their credit at Bombay, both Bombay and Harda Courts were held to have jurisdiction to try a case of cheating against the sender of the railway receipts on the ground that the sending of the railway receipts was one of the series of acts constituting cheating. See also Emperor v. Gafur Karimbax : (1930)32BOMLR785 . We, therefore, hold that the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner can be tried either in Bombay or in Nandurbar and the District Magistrate could take cognizance of them. We see no reason to interfere with his order and discharge the rule.