Full Judgment
Somasundaeam, J.
1. This is a petition to quash the charge on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction. The facts of the case are those,
2. The petitioner has been prosecuted for having used three documents along with his-application to the Madras Public Services Commission for admission to a competitive examination. The three documents are said to be forged documents. They were posted at Vizagapatam on t7th July 1947 along with his application and received in the office of the Public Services Commission on 21st July 1917. After examining eight prosecution witnesses the lower Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences Under Section 465 and Section 405 read with Section 471, penal Code.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these documents along with his application having been posted at Vizagapatam the offence of using forged documents is complete at Vizagapatam and, therefore, the only Court which has territorial jurisdiction for trying the petitioner for the offence3 of which he is charged is the Court at Vizagapatam and not the Fifth Presidency Magistrate's Court at Madras.
4. The question really is where were these documents U3ed. There is no doubt that the petitioner intended to use these documents a3 genuine before the Madras Public Services Com. mission and with that object he posted his application along with the forged documents at Vizagapatam. The real user of the documents cornea in only when the Madras Public Services Commission looka into the application and conaiders it. It is open to the petitioner to withdraw his application even before it is considered by the Public Services Commission. Then it cannot be said that he used the forged documents with the Madras Public Services Commission as genuine. In this case he has not done so. As stated already, the real user comes in only when the application is considered by the Commission at Madras and it has been considered there, The offence of using forged documents as genuine is, therefore, committed arc Madras. I hold that the Presidency Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the offences charged.
5. The petition is dismissed.