9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to do so. In 1986, the company filed an eviction suit in the Munsiff s Court at Jamshedpur and sought possession and mesne profits. The said suit in the Munsiff's Court is being contested and is pending. In the meanwhile, sometime in June, 1988, the company was advised to file a Criminal Case No. 54/S/88 in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, under section 630 of the Companies Act and section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, when apparently there was no justification for filing such a complaint in Bombay. Nothing has happened in Bombay and nothing has to be done by the petitioner in Bombay, nor is the property situated in Bombay, the sole justification being that the company has its registered office in Bombay. Hence, this petition for quashing the process issued on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. But the legal ingenuity with which it is pursued and persisted makes it nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Now, for some more details. In the complaint, after setting out the facts relating to the petitioner's employment and allotment of residential quarters, the company proceeds to set out as to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s what the company says in the complaint. He submitted that the words "accounted for" will have no application to a case of this type, where it is alleged that the accused has not returned the very property which is entrusted to him. He submitted that wherever the allegation is that the property has not been returned in specie, that would be covered by the words "any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned", as provided under section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But it is possible, where the property is converted into money or where money is entrusted for a particular purpose and is misappropriated, to say that the words "accounted for" under section 181(4), Criminal Procedure Code, would apply. That is not the case here. Mr. Lahiri would not meet the argument of Mr. Baldota straight. The theme of his song is that the question of territorial jurisdiction and also the question of accountability are mixed questions of law and fact, and that, therefore, I cannot intervene under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. He cited a number of cases in support of his contention that it is for the trial co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the services, the accused was called upon by the company to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises. Since the accused did not comply with the same, the company submits that "the accused with dishonest intention, wrongfully withheld the possession of the said premises and thereby wrongfully deprived the company of the use of the premises for its other working employees resulting in loss of money in the form of allowing house rent allowance to other employees entitled to the said premises." Needless to say, if these submissions are carried to its logical end, in every case of leave and licence or in every case of service occupancy, if the occupant does not vacate, but asserts a right, it becomes a criminal breach of trust. I am pointing this out only to show that these submissions are as absurd as what has been submitted in para 8 of the complaint. Realising that the substance of the company's case is withholding possession of the premises for which the courts in Bombay would have had no jurisdiction, the draftsman had to necessarily, but artificially, plead what is set out in para 8 of the complaint. If what is pleaded therein is accepted as true, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty was required (by law or contract) to be returned or accounted for by the accused person, to cases where there is no evidence of the offence other than the failure to return or account for the property." I do not understand how this would help the company in the present case. There is no plea in the present case that the residential quarters are required, by law or contract, to be returned or accounted for in Bombay. Again, this provision would apply in such cases where there is no evidence of the offence other than the failure to return or account for the property. In the present case, the withholding or retaining of the property itself is evidence of the offence. This has taken place at Jamshedpur. It is there where the property has been retained. When that is so, there is no question of the accused becoming liable to "account for" in Bombay. By amending the law, the legal position has been clarified. The words "required to be returned or accounted for" in section 181(4), Criminal Procedure Code, would apply only where there is no evidence of the offence other than failure to return or account for the property, and where any provision of law or contract requires the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withholding or retention of the property. The offence is complete when such retention takes place. It is at Jamshedpur where the retention has taken place and it is but natural that the case be filed at Jamshedpur. Mr. Bhonsale submitted that under section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. What is the consequence here ? There is no answer. Mr. Bhonsale submitted that the company has suffered loss in Bombay, consequent upon the accused having refused to vacate, as the company is unable to accommodate their other employees who have to be accommodated on the accused vacating the residential quarter and that those employees who are in the waiting list will have to be given their allowances for accommodation. Mr. Bhonsale submitted that the accounts of such employees have been maintained in Bombay. Therefore, the consequences can be said to have ensued in Bombay and that, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain such a case. I am af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly the meaning of the section. Take the first illustration. A is wounded within the local limits of the jurisdiction of court X, and dies within the local limits of the jurisdiction of court Z. The offence of culpable homicide of A may be inquired into or tried by X or Z. In that case, the offence charged is culpabie homicide. The mere act done of wounding is not by itself enough to constitute a charge of culpable homicide. It may, no doubt, be a ground for another charge, but that is immaterial. It does not constitute a charge of culpable homicide, unless it is followed by the consequence of death. So that, taking section 179 alone and reading it without the help of any authority, I should have thought it was plain that the consequence referred to is a consequence which forms part of the offence, and a consequence which does not form part of the offence, does not attract jurisdiction under section 179." Again at page 493 : "What is the natural and grammatical meaning of the word 'consequence ?' per se ; the question is : What is the natural and grammatical meaning of the word 'consequence' in the context in which it appears in section 179 ? and as I have already pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the accounts in Bombay, i.e. , that the accounts in Bombay were falsified. That being so, I think that that point also is not open to the complainant." The other two learned judges Madgavkar J. and Baker J. agree with the learned Chief Justice when they say that where the consequential loss is not a part of that offence, section 179 has no application, but rather section 177 and section 181, sub-section (2), and, of course, presently section 181, sub-section (4). Mr. Bhonsale also argued that wrongful loss is also a matter of evidence and I should not exercise my discretion under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. But surprisingly Mr. Bhonsale also sought to invoke section 462, Criminal Procedure Code, to submit that no finding, sentence or order of any criminal court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice. This is a strange argument. In one breath, they say that the question of territorial jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
