Skip to content


Mysore Manufacturers and Traders Vs. Ray Choudhary - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ577
AppellantMysore Manufacturers and Traders
RespondentRay Choudhary
Excerpt:
- karnataka rent act, 1999.[k.a. no. 34/2001]. section 27(2)(r) :[k. ramanna,j] bona fide requirement of landlord - landlord requiring premises for his/her personal use and occupation no proper challenge to the evidence let in by the landlord held, the requirement of the landlord to be presumed. there is no place for considering comparative hardship under the act. where the landlord claimed that he has inherited the property under a will and there was no challenge by other legatees or claimants, the tenant cannot challenge the genuineness of the will. .....as alleged by the complainant.3. a complaint was filed against the accused that he had committed criminal breach of trust, on the basis of which a case was registered. the accused appeared in court and raised an objection that the court at bangalore had no jurisdiction. the learned magistrate upheld the objection and directed the return of the complaint for being presented to the proper court.4. the question turns upon the construction of section 181(4) of the cr.pc that section lays down that:any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may de inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-8-1976 by which the Metropolitan Magistrate, III Court, Bangalore City, directed the return of the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the proper Court.

2. The complainant Dr. Indra Sanghi, who is doing business in Bangalore under the name and style M/s. 'Mysore Manufacturers and Traders', imported five paper bags of synthetic resin under actual user's licence from Germany. The goods arrived at Madras Harbour. The accused who is a clearing agent, agreed to clear the goods and despatch the same to Bangalore by M/s. Umashankar Transport as desired by the complainant. For doing this work, a demand draft for Rs. 3200/- was sent to the accused and the same was accepted by him. The accused, after clearing the goods, did not send the same to Bangalore, as alleged by the complainant.

3. A complaint was filed against the accused that he had committed criminal breach of trust, on the basis of which a case was registered. The accused appeared in Court and raised an objection that the court at Bangalore had no jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection and directed the return of the complaint for being presented to the proper court.

4. The question turns upon the construction of Section 181(4) of the Cr.PC That section lays down that:

Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may De inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

The question in the present case would be whether the accused undertook to return the goods to the complainant at Bangalore. The case of the complainant is that the accused undertook to return the goods to him at Bangalore If that be so, the proper venue for the trial of a case of criminal breach of trust is the area where the crime was committed. Where the accused is under a liability to deliver goods at a particular place and fails to do so by reason of having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust which is alleged against him, the court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction that place is situated, may enquire into and try the offence under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Cr.PC In the present case, as alleged by the complainant, the accused undertook to deliver the goods at Bangalore through M/s. Umashankar Transport. Consequently, the Bangalore court has jurisdiction to enquire into and try the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed and the case is remitted back to the court below with a direction to dispose of the same-according, to, law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //