9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 2. Whether the petition of complaint discloses any offence under Section 406 IPC. 3. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 4. Whether the offence alleged is a continuing offence. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The petitioners contended that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, lacked territorial jurisdiction as the trust property and banks involved were situated outside the jurisdiction of the court. However, the court found that some fixed deposits were retained in banks within Calcutta's jurisdiction, such as the National and Grindlays Bank, Chowringhee Branch, and United Commercial Bank, New Market Branch. Under Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., the court within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property was received or retained has jurisdiction. Therefore, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. Disclosure of Offence under Section 406 IPC: The court examined whether the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 406 IPC, which involves criminal breach of trust. The complaint must show creation of an obligation and dishonest misappropriation or dealing with the property contrary to the obligation. The court noted that the complaint alleged the petitioners retained funds in their names and in the name of Jain Swetambar Society, but did not allege dishonest misappropriation for personal use. Mere retention without dishonest misappropriation does not constitute criminal breach of trust. The court concluded that the complaint did not disclose all the ingredients of an offence under Section 406 IPC. 3. Barred by Limitation: The petitioners raised the plea of limitation, arguing that the complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. The court noted that the limitation period started from 15-9-75, when the opposite party first wrote to the petitioners about the funds, or from 30-3-76, when the opposite party inspected the accounts. Since the complaint was filed on 6-9-80, it was clearly barred by limitation. The court rejected the argument that the plea of limitation could not be raised for the first time in the High Court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, which emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period as a matter of fairness in trial. 4. Continuing Offence: The opposite party argued that the offence was continuing as the fixed deposits yielded interest over time. The court distinguished between continuing offences and offences committed once and for all, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Bihar v. Deokaran. The court found that the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust was committed once and for all, based on the audit reports for 1975 and 1976, and was not a continuing offence. Therefore, the bar of limitation applied, and the complaint was barred by limitation. Conclusion: The court concluded that while the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, had territorial jurisdiction, the complaint did not disclose all the ingredients of an offence under Section 406 IPC and was barred by limitation. Consequently, the proceeding in Case No. 2396 of 1980 was quashed, and the impugned order dated 7-1-82 was set aside. The fixed deposit receipts were ordered to be returned to the petitioners, and the operation of the order was stayed for two months.
|
