Skip to content


A.K. Moitra Vs. Kamini Mohan Bose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal107
AppellantA.K. Moitra
RespondentKamini Mohan Bose
Cases ReferredSimhachalam v. Rati Kanta Laha
Excerpt:
- .....show cause why the case against the petitioner should not be transferred to the court of the chief presidency magistrate or any other stipendiary magistrate in calcutta as this court may think fit to transfer to, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this court may seem fit and proper.2. it appears that a complaint under sections 406 and 420 of the i.p.c. was lodged against the petitioner in the court of the deputy magistrate of barisal. the circumstances which gave rise to this complaint being lodged, shortly stated, are these: the petitioner before us carries on business as a coal merchant at 1, pollock street, in calcutta. the complainant who resides in barisal entrusted the petitioner with a sum of rs. 400 being part of the price of a certain quantity of coal.....
Judgment:

1. This is the Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Barisal and also upon the opposite party to show cause why the case against the petitioner should not be transferred to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate or any other stipendiary Magistrate in Calcutta as this Court may think fit to transfer to, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. It appears that a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Barisal. The circumstances which gave rise to this complaint being lodged, shortly stated, are these: The petitioner before us carries on business as a coal merchant at 1, Pollock Street, in Calcutta. The complainant who resides in Barisal entrusted the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 400 being part of the price of a certain quantity of coal which the complainant asked the petitioner to despatch to Barisal from Calcutta. The petitioner says that he sent down instructions to colliery in Raneegunge to despatch the coal to the complainant. But the coal was not despatched in time owing to the shortage of wagons. Now, so far as the charge under Section 406 is concerned, it is, in our opinion, having regard to the terms of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only triable by a Magistrate in Calcutta.

3. The misappropriation took place in Calcutta, where the money was received by the petitioner from the complainant. We are fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in the case reported as Simhachalam v. Rati Kanta Laha [1917] 44 Cal. 912. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to say anything as regards the charge under Section 420. That may or may not be triable by a Court in Calcutta. For the purposes of this Rule we propose to confine ourselves to the charge of criminal misappropriation and to the provisions of Section 406 and of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we think that this is a case which should be tried by the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and direct that the case be transferred to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta to be tried either by himself or by a stipendiary Magistrate to be nominated by him.


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