Emperor Vs. Jamnadas Vasanji

.....the complainant at dhulia (in the bombay presidency ); the price of the commodity was paid by the complainant's firm in bombay. the tins, when opened by the complainant at dhulia, were found to contain ground-nut oil mixed with rock oil. on these facts, the complainant filed a complaint of cheating against the accused in the court of the first class magistrate at dhulia. the accused objected to the trial, on the ground that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. the magistrate having overruled the objection, the accused applied to the high court :-;that the magistrate at dhulia had jurisdiction to try the case, for the deception took place at dhulia where the complainant was the victim of the deceit and led to believe that which was untrue. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection.....heaton, j.1. this may be a hard case, but it seems to me to be a case as to which the law is quite clear. there is an accusation of cheating against a trader of salem in the madras presidency. the alleged cheating is that he deceived a trader in dhulia in this presidency by leading him to believe that he was buying clean ground-nut oil when, in reality, he was buying a mixture of ground nut oil with rock oil. the dhulia trader, it is said, was induced by the deceit to pay the price agreed upon on the understanding that it was clean oil. if the facts are as i have stated, there is a case of cheating. one of the essential ingredients of cheating, one of those things without which there cannot be cheating as defined in the indian penal code, is deceit. there must be a person who deceives and a person who is deceived. here, according to the allegations, the person who was deceived was at dhulia, it was there that he was the victim of the deceit, there that he was led to believe that which was untrue. section 179 of the criminal procedure code says that when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, then the offence may be inquired into by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the thing has been done. here the thing which has been done is the deceiving of the complainant. he has been deceived in dhulia, and to me, at least, it is clear, absolutely clear, that, under the law, the courts at dhulia have jurisdiction in this case. whether the courts at dhulia are the courts which, with the best regard for the administration of justice, ought to hear the case is another matter. but we are here concerned with the bare question of law. there is no application before us of any kind except to interfere on the ground that the dhulia court is without jurisdiction, and we are unable to say that the dhulia court is without jurisdiction. therefore, i think the rule should be discharged.shah, j.2. i agree.